Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:16:23 -0700 From: "Russell L. Carter" <rcarter@chomsky.Pinyon.ORG> To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel M. Eischen), julian@whistle.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, rcarter@pinyon.org Subject: Re: Threads goals version III Message-ID: <19991105011623.CE5AD4D@chomsky.pinyon.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> of "Thu, 04 Nov 1999 16:48:32 PST." <199911050048.QAA49642@rah.star-gate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
%> 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. Russell 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?19991105011623.CE5AD4D>