control groups

Robin Bate Boerop me at
Fri Apr 13 12:08:00 PDT 2012

On 2012-04-13, at 3:48 PM, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> No reason not to use these solutions on Linux mobile devices and Linux
> distributions, though.

It would be a good idea to solve the problem on platforms which admit straightforward solutions via either real-time (or other nonstandard) scheduling facilities.

One argument against solving the problem this way is the following (I play devil's advocate):

D-Bus is fundamentally broken performance-wise in the way described in the paper. Fixing it on some platforms and not others creates an open source product which is broken on some platforms and not others. This is a confusing story for adopters of D-Bus. Its also confusing for current users of D-Bus - they can't be sure that performance will be reasonable on platforms on which their software runs; D-Bus may or may not be broken on those platforms.

Thanks, everyone, for thinking about this problem some more.

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Robin Bate Boerop <me at> wrote:
>> I agree that the scheduling problems discussed in the paper would be trivially solvable with real-time scheduling facilities like those mentioned above. Unfortunately, on the systems on which D-Bus operates (Windows, vanilla Linux), those in-kernel scheduling facilities are not available. I wish that they were.
>> There may be some good solutions available with cgroups. Windows does not have those, AFAIK.

More information about the dbus mailing list