From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 4 14:57:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC48C15164 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:57:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05521 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:56:14 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id XAA95421 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:56:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from plunger.gdeb.com (plunger.gdeb.com [153.11.11.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2641571D for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:50:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from orion.caen.gdeb.com ([153.11.109.11]) by plunger.gdeb.com with ESMTP id RAA16015; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:46:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from vigrid.com (clcrtr [153.11.109.129]) by orion.caen.gdeb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA48020; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:48:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Message-ID: <38220D4B.9BEAFCDB@vigrid.com> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 17:48:43 -0500 From: "Daniel M. Eischen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Julian Elischer , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads goals version III References: <199911041804.LAA18253@usr06.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert wrote: > 4) Abuse of kernel threads in order to compete as N kernel > schedulable entities with respect to other processes in > the system > > This is a dodge to avoid supporting or implementing > scheduler callses for the class of problems that really > need scheduler classes, in the hopes that a certain > unfair competition ratio "will be enough". 4a) Use of kernel threads to compete in different scheduler classes? We have a MT application under Solaris with a few threads bound to LWPs and placed in the real-time scheduler class. These threads are carefully crafted to not chew up the CPU, but to respond in a timely manner to events. The rest of the threads in the application are not in the real-time class (and we don't want them to be) I think that what you're implying in 4, is that an application should place itself in the proper scheduling class/priority to "achieve unfair competition". My concern is that we not restrict the kernel scheduling class to be at the process level, but we allow for fine grained control of the threads within a process. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message