From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:08:42 +0200 Message-ID: <1251227322.7538.1172.camel@twins> 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: Mike Galbraith , raz ben yehuda , riel@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, andrew motron , wiseman@macs.biu.ac.il, lkml , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:53463 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755727AbZHYTKm (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:10:42 -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? 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.