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 [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
