linux-kernel - Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

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: <4B2DAC40.7090302@tmr.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:46:56 -0500
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:12:58 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Con Kolivas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:10:39 Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>> Could you make the scheduler build time configurable instead of
>>>> replacing the existing one? Embedded folks in particular may love a low
>>>> footprint scheduler.
>>> It's not a bad idea, but the kernel still needs to be patched either way.
>>> To get BFS they'd need to patch the kernel. If they didn't want BFS, they
>>> wouldn't patch it in the first place.
>> BFS would have a chance to be merged as an alternate scheduler for
>> specialized situations (such as embedded or desktop use).
>>
> 
> Nice idea, but regardless of who else might want that, the mainline 
> maintainers have already made it clear they do not.
> 
Since your work is going in as a patch anyway, who is it that cares? The point 
is that I have one source which I compile with multiple config files, rather 
than multiple sources I get to patch with selected embellishments from -mm and 
-next and other places.

It would be great if the system could boot and run on a doorknob scheduler long 
enough to load a scheduling modules at boot time. But that's a second level gain 
to having a single source and compiling the hell out of it.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
--
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/