Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 20:49:43 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New scheduler - Interactivity fixes Message-ID: <20030129094943.GA27833@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030128111454.87213G-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0301252309090.89171-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030128111454.87213G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> scheduler 4bsd
> #scheduler ule
>
>Config(8) could be taught to allow at most one scheduler directive. It
>would allow zero with a warning ("No scheduler defined at compile-time;
>one must be loaded as a module"). We'd either introduce a new class
>similar to OPTIONS, or map the argument of scheduler directly to an
>option, with the possible risk of getting some false positives in the
>argument validity checking.
Traditionally, this is done by having the linker whinge about undefined
or multiply defined symbols when it tries to link the kernel, leaving
the poor user to try and guess which option he got wrong :-).
I'd prefer to allow multiple schedulers to be compiled in (or KLD'd),
with a sysctl to select which one (preferably alterable at runtime).
This reduces(?) the problem to:
- ensure that at least one scheduler is present before trying to use it
- picking a default scheduler when multiple schedulers are present.
>(For the humor impaired, we could also use "sched" instead of "scheduler"
>above.)
Maybe we should name all the schedulers after colours. "Blue" seems
logical for Jeff's new scheduler. How about "red" for the standard one?
Peter
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?20030129094943.GA27833>