lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
Al Boldi wrote:
> Peter Williams wrote:
>> Al Boldi wrote:
>>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>>> This version removes the hard/soft CPU rate caps from the SPA
>>>> schedulers.
>>>>
>>>> A patch for 2.6.18-rc2 is available at:
>>>>
>>>> <http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/cpuse/plugsched-6.4-for-2.6.18-rc2.
>>>> pat ch?download>
>>>>
>>>> Very Brief Documentation:
>>>>
>>>> You can select a default scheduler at kernel build time. If you wish
>>>> to boot with a scheduler other than the default it can be selected at
>>>> boot time by adding:
>>>>
>>>> cpusched=<scheduler>
>>> Any reason dynsched couldn't be merged with plugsched?
>> None that I know of (but I'm not familiar with dynsched). Patches to
>> add it to the mix would be accepted and once in I would try to keep it
>> in step with kernel changes.
>
> I thought dynsched patches against plugsched, what else is needed?
>

Hopefully, nothing but it may be necessary to modify the plugsched
interface if dynsched can't be implemented against it "as is". E.g.
both staircase and nicksched needed changes to what was required for
ingosched and the SPA schedulers.

>>>> to the boot command line where <scheduler> is one of: ingosched,
>>>> ingo_ll, nicksched, staircase, spa_no_frills, spa_ws, spa_svr, spa_ebs
>>>> or zaphod. If you don't change the default when you build the kernel
>>>> the default scheduler will be ingosched (which is the normal
>>>> scheduler).
>>>>
>>>> The scheduler in force on a running system can be determined by the
>>>> contents of:
>>>>
>>>> /proc/scheduler
>>> 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 :-). The schedulers would probably have to
have a common idea of how the run queue works though and this would
restrict the choice of schedulers.

I have no intentions (at the moment) of going down this path myself.

However, I am thinking about making it possible to switch between the
various SPA schedulers on a running system. A extension to this could
be to attempt automatic selection of which scheduler to use possibly
based on which users are logged in.

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"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 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: 2006-07-25 07:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans