linux-kernel - Re: 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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1251282598.3514.20.camel@raz>
Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:29:58 +0300
From:	raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, 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 Wed, 2009-08-26 at 07:31 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 13:22 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 08/25/2009 01:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Is it the whole concept of isolating one or more cpus from all normal
> > kernel tasks that you don't like, or just this particular implementation?
> > 
> > I ask because I know of at least one project that would have used this
> > capability had it been available.  As it stands they have to live with
> > the usual kernel threads running on the cpu that they're trying to
> > dedicate to their app.
> 
> Its the simple fact of going around the kernel instead of using the
> kernel.
> 
> Going around the kernel doesn't benefit anybody, least of all Linux.
> 
> So its the concept of running stuff on a CPU outside of Linux that I
> don't like. I mean, if you want that, go ahead and run RTLinux, RTAI,
> L4-Linux etc.. lots of special non-Linux hypervisor/exo-kernel like
> things around for you to run things outside Linux with.
Hello Peter, Hello All.
First , It a pleasure seeing that you take interest in OFFSCHED. 
So thank you. 

To my opinion this a matter of defining what a system is. Queuing theory
teaches us that a system is defined to be everything within the boundary
of the computer, this includes, peripherals, processors, RAM , operating
system, the distribution and so on.  
The kernel is merely a part of the SYSTEM, it is not THE SYSTEM; and it
is not a blasphemy to bypass it.The kernel is not the goal and it is not
sacred. 
OFFSCHED is bad name to my project. My project is called SOS = Service
Oriented System.
SOS, has nothing to do with Real time. SOS is about arranging the
processors to serve the SYSTEM the best way we can; if the kernel
disturbs the service, put it a side I say. 

How will the kernel is going to handle 32 processors machines ?  These
numbers are no longer a science-fiction.

What i am suggesting is merely a different approach of how to handle
multiple core systems. instead of thinking in processes, threads and so
on i am thinking in services. Why not take  a processor and define this
processor to do just firewalling ? encryption ? routing ? transmission ?
video processing... and so on... 

Raz

--
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/