|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Christoph Lameter <cl-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER |
|| ||Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:50:41 -0700|
|| ||mingo-AT-elte.hu, peterz-AT-infradead.org, raziebe-AT-gmail.com,
maximlevitsky-AT-gmail.com, cfriesen-AT-nortel.com, efault-AT-gmx.de,
|| ||Article, Thread
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:40:09 -0400 (EDT)
Christoph Lameter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter has not given a solution to the problem. Nor have you.
All I've seen is "I want 100% access to a CPU". That's not a problem
statement - it's an implementation.
What is the problem statement?
My take on these patches: the kernel gives userspace unmediated access
to memory resources if it wants that. The kernel gives userspace
unmediated access to IO devices if it wants that. But for some reason
people freak out at the thought of providing unmediated access to CPU
Don't get all religious about this. If the change is clean,
maintainable and useful then there's no reason to not merge it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)