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: <20090826180407.GA13632@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:04:07 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	raz ben yehuda <raziebe@...il.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, riel@...hat.com,
	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


* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 11:41 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why waste a whole cpu for something that could be done by part of one?
> > >
> > > Because of latency and performance requirements
> >
> > Latency is the only one, and yes people have been using hacks 
> > like this, I've also earlier mentioned RTAI, RTLinux and 
> > L4-Linux which basically do the same thing.
> >
> > The problem is, that its not linux, you cannot run something on 
> > a these off-cores and use the same functionality as linux, if 
> > you could it'd not be offline.
> 
> Right. We discussed this. Why are you repeating the same old 
> arguments?

The thing is, you have cut out (and have not replied to) this 
crutial bit of what Peter wrote:

> > The past year or so you've been whining about the tick latency, 
> > and I've seen exactly _0_ patches from you slimming down the 
> > work done in there, even though I pointed out some obvious 
> > things that could be done.

... which pretty much settles the issue as far as i'm concerned. If 
you were truly interested in a constructive solution to lower 
latencies in Linux you should have sent patches already for the low 
hanging fruits Peter pointed out.

	Ingo
--
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/