Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 18:09 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:47:27PM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote:
> > > What happened to the RT rlimit code from Chris?
> > 
> > I still have it, but I had the impression Ingo didn't like it as a long
> > term solution/hack (albeit small) to the scheduler.  Whereas the rt-lsm
> > patch is wholly self-contained.
> 
> I think it's important to recognize that we're trying to address an
> issue that has a much wider potential audience than pro audio users,
> and not very far off - what is high end audio performance today will be
> expected desktop performance next year.
> 
> So I think it's critical that we find solution that's appropriate for
> _every single box_, because realistically vendors are going to ship
> with this "wholly self-contained" feature turned on by default next
> year, at which point the "containment" will be nil and whatever warts
> it has will be with us forever.
> 
> The rlimit stuff is not perfect, but it's a much better fit for the
> UNIX model generally, which is a fairly big win. Having it in the
> system unconditionally doesn't trigger the gag reflex in quite the
> same way as the LSM approach.
> 

Without considering the userspace aspect, RT rlimits is the best
implementation I have seen. All others either break RT scheduling
semantics, or don't allow any way for root to maintain control of
the system after giving out RT privileges.


http://mobile.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.