Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Stephen Smalley wrote:
You argued against pluggable schedulers, right? Why is security
different?
Schedulers can be objectively tested. There's this thing called
"performance", that can generally be quantified on a load basis.
Yes, you can have crazy ideas in both schedulers and security. Yes, you
can simplify both for a particular load. Yes, you can make mistakes in
both. But the *discussion* on security seems to never get down to real
numbers.
And yet you can make the exact same case for schedulers as security, you
can quantify the behavior, but if your only choice is A it doesn't help
to know that B is better.
You say "performance" as if it had universal meaning. In truth people
want to optimize for total tps (servers), or responsiveness on the human
scale (mail, dns, nntp servers), or perceived smoothness (with many
threads updating a display to slow with load rather than start visibly
jumping the motion from one to another), or very short term response
(-rt patches). People want very different behavior under the same load,
and that is what *they* call "performance," namely best delivery of
what's important. The numbers are "hard science" but the choice of which
numbers are important is still "people wanking around with their opinions".
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
