From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 4 18: 7:38 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 8C80114D6A for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:07:27 -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 DAA07540 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:07:25 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id DAA96420 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:07:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (216-200-29-190.snj0.flashcom.net [216.200.29.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C11E14D6A for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:07:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA50331; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:04:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Message-Id: <199911050204.SAA50331@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "Russell L. Carter" Cc: Terry Lambert , eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel M. Eischen), julian@whistle.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, rcarter@pinyon.org Subject: Re: Threads goals version III In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:16:23 MST." <19991105011623.CE5AD4D@chomsky.pinyon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:04:25 -0800 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > %> One could argue that the program should be using a hybrid scheduling > %> class in the kernel in order to achieve this effect, rather than > %> having to have the idea that you would want to schedule seperate > %> kernel schedulable entities within one program. > % > %How to you propose to handle priorieties for different > %"thread thingies" --- "thread thingies" being a yet to > %be defined thread implementation. > % > > One uses pthread_*sched* routines to modify scheduling > attributes for individual threads. Whether or not those threads > can get process or system scope, as in the spec, or just process > scope, that is the question. > > If I groked Terry's first missive then the process should first > set scheduling attributes via sched_setscheduler, if it needs > something other than SCHED_OTHER (default per process scheduling). > I'm still studying whether or not this is good enough; i.e., can > individual threads in a process with a SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR > policies meet QoS goals, and does it provide the flexibility > needed by an application structured as Daniel's is. > Well, we slowly edging to a possible solution we just to need to investigate what the "scheduling" implementation is going to be for most likely it will affect the kernel scheduler . > -- Amancio Hasty hasty@rah.star-gate.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message