Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Run Down Of VT Switching On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Run Down Of VT Switching On Linux

    Phoronix: A Run Down Of VT Switching On Linux

    David Herrmann, the student developer working on DRM Render Nodes this summer and has been a longtime proponent of killing the Linux kernel console, has written at length about VT (virtual terminal) switching on Linux systems...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0NDg

  • #2
    They are papering over kernel problems in userspace, making a new (dbus-using, no less, eww) daemon necessary (logind).

    Revoke() belongs in kernel, an extra daemon is just pure unnecessary overhead.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      They are papering over kernel problems in userspace, making a new (dbus-using, no less, eww) daemon necessary (logind).

      Revoke() belongs in kernel, an extra daemon is just pure unnecessary overhead.
      A pure revoke() system-call doesn't help. In fact, the revoke() syscall would be papering over kernel problems. If you have better ideas than the one proposed, please let us know. But nobody so far could come up with one. Besides, I like the logind idea, so why exactly do you not like it?

      Comment


      • #4
        While keeping in mind that these concepts we've been using for years really are ridiculously old, I'm particularly excited about moving VT switching to userspace. In doing so, you have to accept a few compromises. Notably, you have to use your wholly reviled systemd-logind system. (Why do people continue to hate on systemd? I've been using it preferentially since 198, and I actually dig it)

        Now, unless someone wants to get off their fucking ass and make a more-suitable solution in the kernel, I think people who want to cry and shit themselves over the use of dbus and systemd-logind should take the initiative to create a more complete and compliant system. Pretty please. Our community should use all the competition it can get to make the best tools for Linux, because that's what makes Linux so damn awesome.

        I love the idea, dvdhrm. Run with it.

        Comment


        • #5
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rundown

          Comment


          • #6
            Now here's something interesting to read.

            Comment


            • #7
              ?? Second definition fits just fine

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                ?? Second definition fits just fine
                It's one word...

                Comment


                • #9
                  My question is, will this be a requirement for running the linux kernel? If it's optional and I can still run the linux kernel and switch terminals without it, then I'm fine with it. If it's a requirement then I'm not fine with it. My problem with LP and his squad of zealots is that they seem to think that forcing their crap on everybody else is a kick. They seem to get enjoyment out of watching everybody else squirm.

                  The reason why I absolutely refuse to install systemd or any of it's dependencies on my computer is because of that dev teams being oblivious to it's bugs. The fact is that it's buggy garbage, but the very second that is mentioned the first thing they do is blame it on anything else. They don't fix the bugs and then accuse something else as being responsible. That behavior will never be acceptable to me.
                  Last edited by duby229; 08-25-2013, 03:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                    My question is, will this be a requirement for running the linux kernel? If it's optional and I can still run the linux kernel and switch terminals without it, then I'm fine with it. If it's a requirement then I'm not fine with it. My problem with LP and his squad of zealots is that they seem to think that forcing their crap on everybody else is a kick. They seem to get enjoyment out of watching everybody else squirm.

                    The reason why I absolutely refuse to install systemd or any of it's dependencies on my computer is because of that dev teams being oblivious to it's bugs. The fact is that it's buggy garbage, but the very second that is mentioned the first thing they do is blame it on anything else. They don't fix the bugs and then accuse something else as being responsible. That behavior will never be acceptable to me.
                    Duby... Ripping out the VT subsystem isn't being done by Lennart. Moving the VT's from kernelspace to userspace is about removing hacky, inefficient, complicated spaghetti code in the kernel.

                    As far as systemd... ALL software has bugs, systemd is no different. And I can say from experience that if there is a real bug in systemd or logind, Lennart is quick to respond to bug reports-- having reported and/or helped test a few my self. If something is systemd's fault, it gets fixed. However, systemd, and everything associated with it under the systemd umbrella name, is EXTREMELY well documented and if something is trying to do things incorrectly then yes I would say that the bugs are in THAT program, not systemd.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                      Moving the VT's from kernelspace to userspace is about removing hacky, inefficient, complicated spaghetti code in the kernel.
                      Isn't it more like separating and replacing code rather than removing, considering that kernel doesn't break the interfaces to userspace?

                      Originally posted by duby229
                      My question is, will this be a requirement for running the linux kernel? If it's optional and I can still run the linux kernel and switch terminals without it, then I'm fine with it.
                      No, so you have nothing to worry about.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Teho View Post
                        Isn't it more like separating and replacing code rather than removing, considering that kernel doesn't break the interfaces to userspace?
                        Fair enough, it will probably be hidden by a config switch for many years. HOPEFULLY it will eventually be removed after its fairly certain that its no longer used.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dvdhrm View Post
                          A pure revoke() system-call doesn't help. In fact, the revoke() syscall would be papering over kernel problems. If you have better ideas than the one proposed, please let us know. But nobody so far could come up with one. Besides, I like the logind idea, so why exactly do you not like it?
                          I object to pointless abstraction layers. They are a scourge of modern computing. Insert quote by Linus on this topic here.

                          What exactly does a needless daemon add, that extending VTs and input handling in kernel would not? Beyond wasting resources?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by curaga View Post
                            I object to pointless abstraction layers. They are a scourge of modern computing. Insert quote by Linus on this topic here.

                            What exactly does a needless daemon add, that extending VTs and input handling in kernel would not? Beyond wasting resources?
                            Did you read the posts linked to in the article? Because they explain all that. VTs are as old and as difficult to deal with as the X server due to them not being designed to do anything like what they're asked to do today. Getting rid of them gets rid of a very poor, extremely limited IPC layer. And the "needless daemon" is already running on most Linux distributions, including Ubuntu, and its design fits this purpose pretty much exactly.

                            As for what it adds, it's enhanced stability and no more resource conflicts. As I said on the blog there, the current system is much like the Real Mode of CPUs, it's a horrible idea based on trust that all the software has no bugs and is written sanely. The new system is like Protected Mode, making sure that even if a program misbehaves/malfunctions, it won't be able to deadlock the whole PC. In addition, the new system does away with artificial limitations, which allows such things as multiple sessions on a single seat (currently that's only possible if there is only a single seat).

                            Also, VTs have no reason to be in the kernel, because as the name implies, they're virtual. They're not actual devices. They ought to be created and deleted by the userland.
                            Last edited by GreatEmerald; 08-26-2013, 11:00 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This sounds like a solution in search of a problem and users that actually care. On the other hand, it could break things horribly especially for those failsafe situations.

                              it sounds like yet another example for of change for it's own sake not driven by any actual end user requirements that is actually being done DESPITE end user objections.

                              It seems like a perfect microsoftism.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X