Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267517AbTGMN4y (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:56:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267587AbTGMN4x (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:56:53 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:34708 "EHLO mail.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267517AbTGMN4x (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:56:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:11:21 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Miguel Freitas , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch] SCHED_SOFTRR linux scheduler policy ... Message-ID: <20030713141121.GG19132@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <1058017391.1197.24.camel@mf> <20030712154942.GB9547@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030712162029.GE9547@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <1058028064.1196.111.camel@mf> <20030712185157.GC10450@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 644 Lines: 16 Davide Libenzi wrote: > You need per-user policies to achieve fairness, the global allocation > won't work. Agreed that fairness is complicated. However, a global limit is needed because it's a big security hole to not have one. I wonder if a global limit can't be implemented very simply? Users interfering with each other's real-timeness is not half as bad as users locking up a box. -- Jamie - 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/