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.
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.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
