Re: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler

• Previous message: Matt Mackall: "Re: [PATCH/proposal] dm-crypt: add digest-based iv generation mode"
• Maybe in reply to: John Lee: "[RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler"
• Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:14:59 -0500
To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>

Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Shailabh Nagar wrote:
>
>>>> Mike Fedyk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Better would be to have the kernel tell the daemon whenever a
>>>>> process in exec-ed, and you have simplicity in the kernel, and
>>>>> policy in user space.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As it turns out, one can still use a fairly simple in-kernel module
>> which provides a *mechanism* for effectively changing a process'
>> entitlement while retaining the policy component in userland.
>
>
> How much code could be removed if CKRM triggered a userspace process to
> perform the operations required?

One other interesting question is what would happen if the userspace
program didn't run, died, etc. Or set some ill-behaved other user
program to a higher priority and the other program did a DoS
(intentional or not)?

I don't like the whole idea, but I like it even less with a user program
requiring context switches on scheduling.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Previous message: Matt Mackall: "Re: [PATCH/proposal] dm-crypt: add digest-based iv generation mode"
• Maybe in reply to: John Lee: "[RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler"
• Next in thread: Rik van Riel: "Re: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]