From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Sep 20 23:25:15 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 6BAA837B401 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252D943E42 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:25:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from baka@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1921) id F00ADAE163; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:25:12 -0700 From: Jon Mini To: Julian Elischer Cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <20020921062512.GB24394@elvis.mu.org> References: <3D8B8E35.EDAF4450@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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 Terry, I would also very much like to hear your thoughts on the best possible threading system for FreeBSD. I have read several of your messages on the subject, and I have somewhat of an idea of the kind of system you'd like to see us write, but a clear picture of the overall design is lacking. Please, write up a description of what you'd like to see. I'll ask questions until I think I've got it and then paraphrase the whole thing back at you, and we can attack if from the other direction (you can correct where I'm wrong). Deal? =) Julian Elischer [julian@elischer.org] wrote : > Ok, Terry, > > I've thought of the best way that we can use your particular talents. > > How about this.. > We have a particular set of scheduling requirements: > 1/ We want threads to have as much parallelism as possible given the > hardware > 2/ We want a particular process to be able to contain 'subentities' > that can be scheduled with different policies. (we call them ksegroups) > 3/ We want simple processes to behave exactly as now, and new processes > to compete with traditional processes on a basis SIMILAR to how > traditional processs compete with each other. > 4/ Partly a corrolary to 3: A threaded process can not overwhelm a > system's scheduler with many threads. (we have a structure 'kse' that > may come in handy for this, but if you thnk of a better way, > consider it.. > 5/ improve handling of large numbers of threads. > 6/ If possible allow selection of scheduler algorythms at run time (*) > > (*) I said IF POSSIBLE.. > > Given these restraints, can you go through the literature, > pick out relevent examples, > and report back to us with scheduling schemes that may work for us. > You are also welcome to make up your own schemes based on what you read > or feel. > > I'm not saying this is how we'll go, just that it's come time that > someone rescanned the literature again, and we could certainly do with > a discussion on the topic. You may recruit as many "scheduler gurus" > as you wish to help you. > > Of particular interest to you shuld be: > 1/ READ THE CURRENT CODE (kern_switch.c and proc.h) > 2/ The mach and chorus schedulers if you can find info on them > 3/ SAs > 4/ Linucks new scheduler. (READ THE CODE) > 5/ the Solaris scheduler re: LWPs > > > > > > "Should you decide to accept this mission, the secretary will of course > deny any knowledge of your actions. This email will self destruct in > however long it takes you to hit the 'd' key." > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message -- Jonathan Mini http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message