From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Oct 8 20:18:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC3537B401; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carp.icir.org (carp.icir.org [192.150.187.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE6F43E65; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:18:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@carp.icir.org) Received: from carp.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carp.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g993IYO2044525; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:18:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@carp.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by carp.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g993IYXU044524; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:18:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:18:34 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Peter Wemm Cc: Jeff Roberson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scheduler framework. Message-ID: <20021008201834.A44413@carp.icir.org> References: <20021008221856.L35572-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <20021009030601.001042A88D@canning.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20021009030601.001042A88D@canning.wemm.org>; from peter@wemm.org on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 08:06:00PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 08:06:00PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: ... > I've always wanted to try out a variation of a table based scheduler, but > the existing one was so well entrenched all over the place that it wasn't > funny. I know lots of other folks want to tinker with this stuff too, but > nobody has seriously proposed (that I remember seeing) doing the > encapsulation without imposing their new scheduler as well. well i don't know if you were talking about me, but in july we went along the exact same lines, trying to abstract the scheduler interface so that one could replace the stock one with something else. Given that our code lets you switch between schedulers at runtime, i wouldn't exactly call that "impose their new schedulers" :) I still have to look at jeff's patches in detail (and he said he has to do the same with mine :) but the only immediate difference i can see is the fact that his work applies to -current whereas mine applies to -stable. More after i study his code. Refs: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=708498+729070+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-stable/20020721.freebsd-stable (the code in the patch is slightly buggy, we have a much more robust version now). cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message