João Carlos Mendes Luís wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Sarath Kamisetty wrote:
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
If you make 1000 threads, you get 1000 slots on the scheduler. (last time I looked..
Let me know if I'm wrong).
The guy next to you with 'vi' gets 1 slot.. who gets more cpu?
And how is that different from forking 1000 processes and use shared memory to communicate? I'll tell you: the thread option will be better for every user in that machine, so let's promote threads.
It's not different, but in that schenario there is no way the programmer can AVOID being nasty.
with process scope threads as mentioned before the process itself is limitted so that iti doesn't unfairly
peanalise other users for not using threads.
IMHO, a thread should have the same privilege as a full processes, and it should count as a process for resource limits.
Thanks, Sarat
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:26:10 -0800, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ashwin Chandra wrote:
I wanted to get some clarification about the 4BSD scheduler. I am sort of
confused why there are two forms of scheduling, one done between processes and
another done between threads in a process. The priority calculations seem to be
done only with processes and I assume that the global run queue holds processes,
not threads. Also why is there only 1 run queue for 1 CPU. What happens to
blocked processes and ready to be runned processes?
Part of the challenge of adding threads to a system is to make it hard for a
threaded process to "flood" the system run queues so that other processes
get no cpu time.
The scheme in the current freeBSD schedulers is a "crude" method, by which
only a limitted number of threads per process are allowed to be added to
the system run queue. RUnnable hreads fo r aprocess are kept on a run queue for
the process and only the highest N prioriy hreads are actually put on the
system run queue.
This is by no means the best way, but rather the easiest way. I am hoping that some PhD candidate somewhere will decide that thread scheduling is his topic and will figure out a better way of doing this.
both run queues hold threads. This is still a place wjere a lot of work can be done.
:-)
Ash
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
