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-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
