On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 14:31 -0500, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@email-addr-hidden> writes:
>
> > Hmmm, I'm getting really confused, I thought that the realtime lsm was
> > the one that was in 'mm (maybe none of them are?). Finally I found the
> > followup article on lwn that mentioned this:
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/121887/
> >
> > "...The end result is that the rlimit patch has come back out of -mm..."
> >
> > Maybe it was put back again afterwards? (this was reported on February
> > 10). Hard to follow all that's happening...
>
> Difficult and frustrating.
>
> The kernel developers have decided not to merge the realtime-lsm,
> after all. Instead, they propose an rlimits extension for granting
> per-user realtime scheduling privileges. This does (barely) meet our
> minimum needs.
>
Actually it appears that both solutions are in -mm now:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.12-rc2/2.6.12-rc2-mm2/broken-out/rt-lsm.patch
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.12-rc2/2.6.12-rc2-mm2/broken-out/nice-and-rt-prio-rlimits.patch
> It is inferior to the realtime-lsm solution for several reasons I feel
> too tired and discouraged to repeat again here.
I agree with Jack's general assessment of the situation, especially
regarding a few arrogant individuals giving the kernel developers a bad
rap, however I can understand their reluctance to merge it.
It's a tough call because although the LSM approach clearly is more
immediately user friendly, the nice and RT prio limits are a better
designed solution. If your distro sets everything up right (a big if),
either way it will just work.
Really it looks like the jury is still out. But good luck finding
*anyone* willing to take up the issue on LKML. We are all fed up.
Lee
Received on Sat Apr 9 00:15:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 00:15:15 EEST