Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER

raz ben yehuda
2009-08-26T07:29:49Z

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