From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>, <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New Linux threading model Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0209201749231.1857-100000@imladris.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209201300500.16925-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > I didn't sat it's not possible, it's just that the interaction between > threads and KSEs on the run queue is very complicated in the current > "interim" scheduler (compatible with the old process scheduler but with > a huge "tumor" on the side of it to do something with threads) > ie. You need to schedule threads in the kernel, while not allowing > a process with a lot of threads to flood the system. Interesting problem, but that might be better done in a more generic way. Ie. first build a thread scheduler and then add support for generic resource containers that aren't tied to the thread<->process relation. Once you have that, you could substitute thread<->user for the default relationship and prevent users with many threads from flooding the CPU ;) Adding resource containers to a scheduler can be hard though, I still haven't found a pretty way of adding per-container (in my case I want to start with per-user) CPU time accounting to Ingo's O(1) scheduler. Sure, I've got several ugly ideas and one less ugly idea, but I haven't found anything nice yet... regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44L.0209201749231.1857-100000>