On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 02:21:10PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:55:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Yeah. Note that there are some subtle but crutial differences between > > PlugSched (which Con used, and which i opposed in the past) and this > > approach. > > PlugSched cuts the interfaces at a high level in a monolithic way and > > introduces kernel/scheduler.c that uses one pluggable scheduler > > (represented via the 'scheduler' global template) at a time. > > What I originally did did so for a good reason, which was that it was > intended to support far more radical reorganizations, for instance, > things that changed the per-cpu runqueue affairs for gang scheduling. > I wrote a top-level driver that did support scheduling classes in a > similar fashion, though it didn't survive others maintaining the patches.
Also, gang scheduling is needed to solve virtualization issues regarding spinlocks in a guest image. You could potentally be spinning on a thread that isn't currently running which, needless to say, is very bad. bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
