From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030300AbWGZAvK (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030301AbWGZAvJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:09 -0400 Received: from omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.92.153]:45748 "EHLO omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030300AbWGZAvI (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:51:08 -0400 Message-ID: <44C6BC76.8010808@bigpond.net.au> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:51:02 +1000 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Boldi CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2 References: <200607241857.52389.a1426z@gawab.com> <200607250757.10722.a1426z@gawab.com> <44C5AFC3.4020405@bigpond.net.au> <200607252127.14024.a1426z@gawab.com> In-Reply-To: <200607252127.14024.a1426z@gawab.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1256; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta01sl.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:51:02 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce