Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:31:05 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c Message-ID: <20041213152556.R60504@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <41BDEAD1.9060308@elischer.org> References: <200412131309.iBDD9XXi045169@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041213082407.U9536@mail.chesapeake.net> <41BDDD5E.9060308@elischer.org> <41BDE477.5050103@freebsd.org> <41BDEAD1.9060308@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > > The whole problem that "slots" is trying to solve is to stop a single > process > from being able to flood the system with threads and therefore make the > system > unfair in its favour. > > The "slots" method is really suitable for the 4bsd scheduler but it is > really > not so good for ULE (at least I think that there are probably better > ways that > ULE could implement fairness). > > What I think should happen at this stage is that the inclusion of > kern_switch.c > should be replaced by actually copying the contents of that file into > the two > schedulers and that they be permitted to diverge. This would allow ULE and > BSD to be cleaned up in terms of the sched_td/kse hack (where they are in > fact the same structure, but to keep diffs to a minimum I defined one in > terms of the other with macros). > > It would also allow jeff to experiment absolutly freely on how ULE might > implement fairness without any constraints of worrying about the BSD > scheduler, and visa versa. > > I have been hesitant to do this because there was some (small) amount of > work going on in the shared file, but I think it is time to cut the > umbilical > cord. If ULE is really fixed then this would be a good time to break > them apart, > and delete kern_switch.c (or at least move most of the stuff in it out > to the > two schedulers). This would protect ULE from future problems being > "imported" from BSD for example. > > comments? Why don't we move the ke_procq into the thread and then kern_switch can remain with the generic runq code? Then we can move *runqueue into the individual schedulers. At least then we won't have to make a copy of the bit twiddling code. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041213152556.R60504>