From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753911AbZHZVeT (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:34:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753892AbZHZVeS (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:34:18 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f206.google.com ([209.85.219.206]:51026 "EHLO mail-ew0-f206.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753482AbZHZVeR (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:34:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=oRCoo8QFQD6fZ+fhXic/F6O6gTrAput4qbnQxirG8hvH/VRNXviCH11EZCImIV4RzL HTAFb/yUT/tiMgdbOZvYdjXtnZhmfjlmMiYevJi8D03ipDSGppal3D4wvErES6hURPIM o6iikAKq7nWss+8oBK/5dv2uq6/p1k29dZgdA= Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER From: raz ben yehuda To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, 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 In-Reply-To: <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> <20090826135041.e6169d18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:34:13 +0300 Message-Id: <1251322453.3882.44.camel@raz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-8.el5_2.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 13:50 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. thank you Mr Morton. thank you !!!