Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 09:24:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Ken Wong <kwong@fathergoose.net6c.io.org> To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduling Algorithms (was: Re: panic in brelse() ... ) Message-ID: <199507291324.JAA00264@fathergoose.net6c.io.org> In-Reply-To: <9507262109.AA23296@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Jul 26, 95 03:09:58 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > [ ... a proposed linear reduction scheduling algorithm ... ] > > [ ... the BSD 4.4 algorithm ... ] > > [ ... the current FreeBSD modified BSD 4,.4 algorithm ... ] > > [ ... the Amiga time base promotion algorithm ... ] > > I think all of these algorithms miss the boat, if we are to be able > to support RT scheduling and SMP scheduling. > > The main issue in both of these tasks that are on the table is a > divorce of the ready-to-run state from the act of running the > code. I think that this really implies seperate queues based > on priority. I think single queue is best serve here. if we want realtime and SMP. I know some RT SMP system does it by dividing priority into 2 sections 1) RT 0-7 2) the Rest is Timeshring within each group, round robin is used to dispatch proceess with the same priority. within group 2) some other algo can still be used to change the priority but never goes up to 1). 1) is fix priority and pre-emptive. the process table can include cpu which it will execute. > > It's necessary because multiple processes can be in the run state (for > SMP, or even for kernel premption), and RT processes have to be able > to be pigs as much as they want (if they are supported). the above would solve this problem. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@cs.weber.edu > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. > Ken Wong
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507291324.JAA00264>