On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Steven Rostedt  wrote:

quoted text
>

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:

>> >

>> > I've always thought that the policy settings belong in the distro, and the

>> > kernel should never enforce a policy (by setting this as default, it is

>> > enforcing a policy, even though an RT user can change it).

>>

>> The kernel has always done a certain amount of "default policy".

>>

>> What do you think things like "swappiness" etc are? Or things like

>> oevrcommit settings? They're all policies, and there is always a default

>> one. So in that sense the kernel always has - and fundamentally _must_ -

>> set some kind of policy.

>>

>> And the default policy should generally be the one that makes sense for

>> most people. Quite frankly, if it's an issue where all normal distros

>> would basically be expected to set a value, then that value should _be_

>> the default policy, and none of the normal distros should ever need to

>> worry.

>>

>> Whether this case is one such, I dunno. Quite frankly, I don't think it's

>> even _nearly_ important enough to get this kind of noise.

>

> I guess the reason that this is getting so much noise over other default

> policies, is that this default policy is changing a well known definition:

> The meaning of FIFO.

>

> By making the default policy limit the time an RT task runs, we have, in

> essence, changed a user API. Applications that expect to be able to run

> uninterrupted by SCHED_OTHER tasks, will now break.

>

> No one is arguing that this new feature is not useful. The argument is,

> should the kernel set the default policy of an old well known scheduling

> policy to something different than what is expected?

>

> Distros set SE Linux on by default, should the kernel do that too?

>

> -- Steve

>

A lot of people I have an immense amount of respect for with vastly differing

opinions.  There was mention of a user poll so I'll share my .000000002 USD

here.
I have accepted in my dealings with real-time that it is a special programming

paradigm.  The developer has much greater control and must exercise it

responsibly.  From this, I have accepted that I can bring my system to it's

knees rather easily if I'm not careful.  I agree with Nick and Max that this

default behavior should be preserved.  I like Steven's suggested of disabling

the throttling in the upstream kernel, and leaving it to the distros to

safe-gaurd the user from themselves should they choose to.  There is already

some precedent for this with the updated default kernel thread priorities and

realtime group and pam limits.conf settings in Red Hat's MRG product.  When

doing real-time application development, I use various mechanisms to ensure

debugability, and it varies based on what I'm doing and how I access the

machine.  Sometimes I need special watchdog application, sometimes I need to

boost all the kernel threads related to networking or serial consoles and the

respective login apps (ssh, agetty, etc.).  It seems reasonable to consider

this throttling as another _optional_ tool in my debugging toolkit.
--

Darren Hart

--

unsubscribe notice
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/