From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:12:50 +0200 Message-ID: <1251223970.7023.61.camel@marge.simson.net> References: <1250983671.5688.21.camel@raz> <1251004897.7043.70.camel@marge.simson.net> <1251018551.3810.35.camel@raz> <1251012621.14003.71.camel@marge.simson.net> <1251025557.3810.65.camel@raz> <1251021133.14003.172.camel@marge.simson.net> <1251222993.7023.53.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: raz ben yehuda , riel@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, andrew motron , wiseman@macs.biu.ac.il, lkml , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:60814 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755486AbZHYSMw (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:12:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 14:03 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > I asked the questions I did out of pure curiosity, and that curiosity > > has been satisfied. It's not that I find it useless or whatnot (or that > > my opinion matters to anyone but me;). I personally find the concept of > > injecting an RTOS into a general purpose OS with no isolation to be > > alien. Intriguing, but very very alien. > > Well lets work on the isolation piece then. We could run a regular process > on the RT cpu and switch back when OS services are needed? If there were isolation, that would make it much less alien to _me_. Isolation would kinda destroy the reason it was written though. RT application/OS is injected into the network stack, which is kinda cool, but makes the hairs on my neck stand up. -Mike