From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:50:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20090826135041.e6169d18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1251282598.3514.20.camel@raz> <1251297910.1791.22.camel@maxim-laptop> <1251298443.4791.7.camel@raz> <1251300625.18584.18.camel@twins> <1251302598.18584.31.camel@twins> <20090826180407.GA13632@elte.hu> <20090826193252.GA14721@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, raziebe@gmail.com, maximlevitsky@gmail.com, cfriesen@nortel.com, efault@gmx.de, riel@redhat.com, wiseman@macs.biu.ac.il, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49184 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753017AbZHZUvx (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:51:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > Peter has not given a solution to the problem. Nor have you. What problem? 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 resources. Don't get all religious about this. If the change is clean, maintainable and useful then there's no reason to not merge it.