From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:14:02 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44C6FA1A.1020709@bigpond.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200607260745.45156.a1426z@gawab.com>
Al Boldi wrote:
> Peter Williams wrote:
>> Al Boldi wrote:
>>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>>> Al Boldi wrote:
>>>>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Al Boldi wrote:
>> [bits deleted]
>>
>>>>>>> It may be really great, to allow schedulers perPid parent, thus
>>>>>>> allowing the stacking of different scheduler semantics. This could
>>>>>>> aid flexibility a lot.
>>>>>> I'm don't understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate?
>>>>> i.e: Boot the kernel with spa_no_frills, then start X with spa_ws.
>>>> It's probably not a good idea to have different schedulers managing the
>>>> same resource. The way to do different scheduling per process is to
>>>> use the scheduling policy mechanism i.e. SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR, etc.
>>>> (possibly extended) within each scheduler. On the other hand, on an
>>>> SMP system, having a different scheduler on each run queue (or sub set
>>>> of queues) might be interesting :-).
>>> What's wrong with multiple run-queues on UP?
>> A really high likelihood of starvation of some tasks.
>
> Maybe you are thinking of running independent run-queues, in which case it
> would probably be unwise to run multiple RQs on a single CPU.
No. I'm thinking about different schedulers on a single run queue. I
don't think that it's a good idea.
>
> But I was more thinking of a run-queue of run-queues, with the masterRQ
> scheduling slaveRQs, each RQ possible running its own scheduling semantic.
I think that you need to think a bit harder about the consequences of
such a system. The word "chaos" springs to mind.
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-26 5:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-24 15:57 [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2 Al Boldi
2006-07-25 2:44 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-25 4:57 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-25 5:44 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-25 18:27 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-25 19:40 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 4:45 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 11:28 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 0:51 ` Peter Williams
2006-07-26 4:45 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 5:14 ` Peter Williams [this message]
2006-07-26 11:23 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-26 12:34 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-07-26 14:04 ` Al Boldi
2006-07-27 1:32 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-21 3:24 Peter Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44C6FA1A.1020709@bigpond.net.au \
--to=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=a1426z@gawab.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).