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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0908261627110.5554@gentwo.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:40:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> ( If you on the other hand were approaching this issue with
>   pragmatism and with intellectual honesty, if you were at the end
>   of a string of patches that gradually improved latencies but
>   couldnt get them below a certain threshold, and if scheduler
>   developers couldnt give you any ideas what else to improve, and
>   _then_ suggested some other solution, you might have a point.
>   You are far away from being able to claim that. )

Intellectual honesty? Wish I would be seeing it. So far there is not even
the uptake required on your side to discuss the problem.

There is no threshold. HPC and other industries want processors as
a whole with all their abilities. They will squeeze the last bit of
performance out of them.

> to have sharp teeth nor any apparent poison fangs) - i simply concur
> with the reasons Peter listed that it is a technically inferior
> solution.

Ok so you are saying that the reduction of OS latencies will make the
processor completely available and have no disturbances like OFFLINE scheduling?

Peter has not given a solution to the problem. Nor have you.

--
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/