Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:43:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: David Greenman <dg@root.com>, "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>, aron@cs.rice.edu, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scheduling queues in FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990408184048.4355D-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199904082341.QAA15598@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I think it would be useful for 'idle' priority processes, but I agree > that it would not be useful for any sort of true 'realtime' ( i.e. > when there is more then one realtime process ). But the existing > realtime scheduler isn't useful for true realtime either since there > are no scheduling primitives. Before getting too excited by the possibility of a code massacre.. you should check with Peter Dufault. I believe some people are using this in production and I have even done so myself at times. One tends to hardly ever need 32 queues in all three categories (well I haven't) but it's be a bummer to lose the functionality entirely. As I said.. Please make sure you here from Peter D before you act as he's involved in this sort of thing.. Julian > > If nobody xxxx not to many people have objections, I would be happy to > remove the realtime & idle queue junk and replace it with the locked > priority concept. ( Cavet: the priority would only be locked while > running in user mode, I wouldn't mess with the supervisor sleep priority > override mechanism ). This would make idle processes useful again. > I would also be happy if someone else did this... but if nobody else > wants to, I can :-) > julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.990408184048.4355D-100000>