[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251227322.7538.1172.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:08:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>,
riel@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
andrew motron <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
wiseman@...s.biu.ac.il, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 14:03 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > I asked the questions I did out of pure curiosity, and that curiosity
> > has been satisfied. It's not that I find it useless or whatnot (or that
> > my opinion matters to anyone but me;). I personally find the concept of
> > injecting an RTOS into a general purpose OS with no isolation to be
> > alien. Intriguing, but very very alien.
>
> Well lets work on the isolation piece then. We could run a regular process
> on the RT cpu and switch back when OS services are needed?
Christoph, stop being silly, this offline scheduler thing won't happen,
full stop.
Its not a maintainable solution, it doesn't integrate with existing
kernel infrastructure, and its plain ugly.
If you want something work within Linux, don't build kernels in kernels
or other such ugly hacks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists