Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:27:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scheduling queues in FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990408132821.4355C-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199904082021.NAA14426@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
not sure I follow.. going ot the meeting tonight? maybe I can get you to explain better there.. julian On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Matthew Dillon said: > :> > :> The 'idle' and 'realtime' queues were hacked in I don't know when, but > :> they don't work very well... there are a number of situations that can > :> cause machine lockups. Frankly, I'd like to see both ripped out completely > :> and a better solution put in later on. > :> > :I agree -- they create messy LL code, and as you say, just don't work correctly. > :-- > :John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, > :dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid > :jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. > > One thing we could do that would accomplish virtually the same goals would > be to 'lock' the cpu priority. This would be a great temporary solution. > > If the cpu priority is locked into queue 0, we are effectively equivalent > to the idle queue. If the cpu priority is locked into queue 31, we are > effectively equivalent to the realtime queue. We then reduce the > priority range that 'normal' processes are allowed to obtain such that they > fall into queues 1-30. Poof, done. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.990408132821.4355C-100000>