Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 05:54:34 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: proposed changes to kern_switch.c and kern_synch.c Message-ID: <20020717105433.GB29269@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <20020716235216.B6785@iguana.icir.org> References: <20020716235216.B6785@iguana.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:52:16PM -0700 I heard the voice of Luigi Rizzo, and lo! it spake thus: > > --- Re. the multi-scheduler architecture --- > > The general idea is to make the process/thread/kse scheduler > a replaceable piece of the kernel, requiring no modifications > to the "struct proc", and with the ability of switching from > one scheduler to another one at runtime (this both for testing > purposes and for whatever need may arise). Random related thoughts: 1) From the work you've done on this already, how difficult would you expect it to be to do this in such a way that you could have multiple (>2) schedulers around, loading and unloading at will (when disabled, of course) through KLD's? 2) How much unavoidable overhead is there in switching between the schedulers? Could it get low enough that it might be meaningful to, instead of writing One True Scheduler, instead write 3 or 4 different optimized ones, and have some intelligence to switch between them automagically as load demands? -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020717105433.GB29269>