Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:36:41 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, "Alexandre \"Sunny\" Kovalenko" <Alex.Kovalenko@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Comments on the KSE option Message-ID: <4542DE59.5010500@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200610281206.13588.davidxu@freebsd.org> References: <45425D92.8060205@elischer.org> <1161999387.872.29.camel@RabbitsDen.RabbitsLawn.verizon.net> <4542D3A8.1040500@elischer.org> <200610281206.13588.davidxu@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Julian > > As you are emphasizing fairness, I must say I don't believe fairness in > libpthread either, you mean you don't think it is a good idea or that you don't think it works? (sorry, I know that your english is way better than my chinese ;-) > I don't think writing a fairness scheduler is an > easy work, does kernel have made fairness for threads in same ksegrp, > so does libpthread's userland scheduler ? The kernel is only responsible for making sure that one ksegrp (usually a process in my original idea) is not unfair to another ksegrp. What happens within the ksegrp is not it's interest. And no it isn't an easy thing to do which is why I had hoped that some PhD student would have taken it up by now :-) > they don't, it can make threads > in same ksegrp misbehaviored, so what we have done is still process > scheduling fairness even there is ksegrp in kernel, and now sacrificed > fairness between threads. once again, I'm not sure what you mean by that. > > David Xu > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4542DE59.5010500>