![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-07-26 06:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||