Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:09:47 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: gnn@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Special schedulers, one CPU only kernel, one only userland Message-ID: <42FB6A3B.8A464F26@freebsd.org> References: <42F9ECF2.8080809@freebsd.org> <20050810.162006.48492066.imp@bsdimp.com> <m2d5oldy12.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <200508110913.11867.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 10:10 pm, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > > But, the question, which is interesting to me for other reasons > > (namely putting in various real-time schedulers) was not answered. Do > > we currently have the requisite primitives to implement different > > schedulers or is there still a lot of jiggery/pokery required? > > Yes, there is some room for different schedulers, but the idea of using a > master/slave SMP system is not ust a different scheduler, but an entirely > different SMP architecture. That said, if you added one more sched_foo call > for synchronous kernel entry in trap() and syscall(), you probably could > provide a master/slave setup via a custom scheduler. It would be more > optimal to also tweak the low-level routing of interrupts to CPUs on > architectures that support it as well, though that would not be required. This is the answer I was looking for. Thanks. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42FB6A3B.8A464F26>