Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:12:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <robert@fledge.watson.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: proposed changes to kern_switch.c and kern_synch.c Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020717100509.91259A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20020716235216.B6785@iguana.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm very excited about the idea of a more flexible scheduler interface, as
having that tends to encourage scheduler research. The main cautions I
have are:
(1) In introducing flexibility, be careful to avoid unnecessary costs. In
particular, the notion of changing the scheduler at run-time is cool,
but not if it involves introducing scary new locks. Being able to
support introducing flexible new scheduling algorithms at boot time is
very appealing, though.
(2) Currently the MD code speaks a few specific MI-defined data structures
in the scheduling code. In a move towards a more flexible mechanism
for specifying scheduling behavior, hammering down the details of what
exactly can and cannot be modified at the C level, and what the
assembly code is and is not permitted to assume, is probably a useful
piece of this work.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
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?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020717100509.91259A-100000>