Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:15:10 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> To: rcarter@pinyon.org (Russell L. Carter) Cc: dyson@iquest.net, dufault@hda.com, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Error in vm_fault change Message-ID: <199901230415.XAA62055@y.dyson.net> In-Reply-To: <199901230331.UAA18297@psf.Pinyon.ORG> from "Russell L. Carter" at "Jan 22, 99 08:31:38 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Russell L. Carter said: > %> > %Your comments about "goals" are correct. The obsolete notion of priority > %is specious. > > No, it isn't. > > People (or rather organizations) are now using "OSS unix" stuff to > do things like control flight and targeting and other interesting > stuff. The lingo is based on "priority". Who gives a shit > about interactive users ;-). Meeting deadlines is probably > orthogonal to system throughput. > Deadlines are a major parameter. Even responsiveness to users is a form of deadline. Priority is only a short term scheduling hint, and doesn't really describe the resource requirements. Priority is a snapshot of what needs to run at an instant in time. Priority as a time invariant scalar (or even as the unix style slowly changing priority) isn't flexible enough anymore. Since we are talking here about resource mgmt, constraining ourselves to thinking about "priority" is just too inflexible. When looking into alternative scheduling mechanisms, priority just doesn't describe an adequate solution to the new range of problems (multimedia scheduling, realtime data, timesharing), that need to be solved concurrently (perhaps with the same resources.) -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901230415.XAA62055>