linux-kernel - Fwd: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5d96567b0908251532v8fe3695t8f94b5132a37cae8@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:32:39 +0300
From:	Raz <raziebe@...il.com>
To:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Fwd: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

There are other disturbances other than interrupts.
attached is a first draft for the 11-th real time conference ,( If it
would be accepted ).
tar zxvf offsched.tgz
cd paper
make
kpdf offsched.pdf.

thank you
raz
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> If there were isolation, that would make it much less alien to _me_.
> Isolation would kinda destroy the reason it was written though. RT
> application/OS is injected into the network stack, which is kinda cool,
> but makes the hairs on my neck stand up.
>
>        -Mike
>

Download attachment "offsched.tgz" of type "application/x-gzip" (117378 bytes)