linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] sched/rt: make it configurable

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.LFD.2.20.1705300815040.17440@knanqh.ubzr>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 08:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] sched/rt: make it configurable

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 05:03:01PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > @@ -1303,8 +1303,17 @@ config SCHED_AUTOGROUP
> >  	  desktop applications.  Task group autogeneration is currently based
> >  	  upon task session.
> >  
> > +config SCHED_RT
> > +	bool "Real Time Task Scheduling" if EXPERT
> > +	default y
> > +	help
> > +	  This adds the sched_rt scheduling class to the kernel providing
> > + 	  support for the SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR policies. You might want
> > +	  to disable this to reduce the kernel size. If unsure say y.
> > +
> >  config SCHED_DL
> >  	bool "Deadline Task Scheduling" if EXPERT
> > +	depends on SCHED_RT
> >  	default y
> >  	help
> >  	  This adds the sched_dl scheduling class to the kernel providing
> > @@ -1632,6 +1641,7 @@ config BASE_FULL
> >  config FUTEX
> >  	bool "Enable futex support" if EXPERT
> >  	default y
> > +	depends on SCHED_RT
> >  	select RT_MUTEXES
> >  	help
> >  	  Disabling this option will cause the kernel to be built without
> 
> Aside from all the other completely non-starter #ifdeffery trainwrecks,
> this is just plain wrong.

Care to elaborate?

You might not like the approach, but you can't dismiss the goal just 
like that. So please help me do it right.


Nicolas