Re: Comments on the KSE option

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Matthew Dillon wrote:


(2) Just because the POSIX scheduler implements all sorts of different
scopes and priority schemes says NOTHING AT ALL about how programs
operating under such a scheduler should be apportioned cpu relative
to OTHER PROGRAMS WHICH ARE INDEPENDANTLY RUNNING ON THE SYSTEM. POSIX
is an abstraction (or virtualization out of available resources),
just like everything else. If you try to treat it as a hard requirement
the only result will be a broken system that might happily run everything
else into the ground and stop allowing root ssh logins in order to
accomodate a badly written POSIX program. There are many third party
applications that set POSIX priorities, in particular realtime
priorities, that I'd rather they not actually use. Most of these
programs set these priorities based on the author's attempt to tune
them on a single operating system (e.g. linux) and in a single operating
environment.

All a program can ever really do when requesting POSIX scheduling
resources is compete against itself. It is the system operator, at a
higher level, that must control how those resources compete with
other programs. That should be clear to everyone it is so obvious.

Actually, that's not quite true. I assume you know the thing you
left out: system scope threads compete against all the other
system scope threads in the system (from all applications, not
just within one application).

--
DE
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Quantcast