From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 13 20:31:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C923416A4CE; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:31:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [208.142.252.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3A543D31; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:31:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBDKV6DB029580; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:31:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)iBDKV6nE029572; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:31:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.chesapeake.net: jroberson owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:31:05 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <41BDEAD1.9060308@elischer.org> Message-ID: <20041213152556.R60504@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <200412131309.iBDD9XXi045169@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041213082407.U9536@mail.chesapeake.net> <41BDDD5E.9060308@elischer.org> <41BDE477.5050103@freebsd.org> <41BDEAD1.9060308@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Peter Wemm cc: Scott Long cc: Stephan Uphoff cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:31:09 -0000 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" >