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
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 t
Hi,
How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
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 d
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?
Thanks,
Sarat
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:26:10 -0800,
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 f
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
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need more cpu time than
vi? Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that might block right?
On Mar 1, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
If you make 1000 threads, you get 100
--- Lucas Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
> more cpu time than
> vi?
No. That is not a given.
> Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of
> computation or
> because they have a lot of concurrent activity that
> might block right?
>
T
Lucas Holt wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need more cpu time than
vi? Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that might block right?
Isn't that what nice is for?
if (only) two processes are using all the
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
more cpu time than
vi?
No. That is not a given.
Multithreaded apps are created to do a lot of
computation or
because they have a lot of concurrent activity that
might
--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> >--- Lucas Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
> >>more cpu time than
> >>vi?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >No. That is not a given.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Mult
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 2:50 PM
To: Sarath Kamisetty
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Ashwin Chandra
Subject: Re: sched_4BSD
Sarath Kamisetty wrote:
>Hi,
>
>How does Linux handle this ? Any idea ?
On March 2, 2005 12:09 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
> NPTL?
> New Pthreads Library from Library?
> isn't that GPL'd?
Native Posix Threads Library
All I know about it is the name. :)
--
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLPHelpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [3
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005, Julian Elischer 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 calculat
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wouldn't a multi threaded program potentially need
more cpu time than
vi?
No. That is not a given.
Multithreaded apps are c
--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> >--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--- Lucas Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> Wouldn't a multi
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so how does that differ from what we have ... a
native pthreads library?
I just said if it was conformant with NPTL, thread and
process scheduling would co-exist.
in theory it does in FreeBSD's pthreads library.
(though it need
This looks like a linux thing to me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPTL
If its a spec, i'd like to know how.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Julian Elischer wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
--- Lucas Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wouldn
[ Attempted to clean up citations, apologies if I mis-attribute
something ]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kamal R. Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kamal>--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Julian> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Kamal>>--- Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
J
--- Steve Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> No, POSIX 1003.1 is the standard, the thread portion
> was known for
> some time as 1003.1c, but was combined in with the
> base.
>
Ok -I meant the POSIX std when I answered Julian.
> NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
> LinuxThre
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kamal R. Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--- Steve Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
>> NPTL is a particular (less brain damaged than
>> LinuxThreads)
>> implementation of the POSIX thread standard.
>>
>> Likewise, scheduler activations are a decent
>> implement
--- Steve Watt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In
>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >N)?
>
> "Problem"? Scheduler activations may be used to
> build M:N
> systems, but that is not a requirement -- you can
> easily
> build a 1:1 (all threads are system contention
> scope) system
> with activations.
>
But th
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel compile, there
Nate Eldredge wrote:
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Nate Eldredge wrote:
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from 6.3-RELEASE
to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After upgrading my
single-cpu amd64 box
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 01:34:11AM -0700, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > Nate Eldredge wrote:
> >> I wrote a small program which forks two processes that run gettimeofday()
> >> in a tight loop to see how long they get scheduled out. On 6.3 the
> >> maxim
Nate Eldredge wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Nate Eldredge wrote:
Hi folks,
Hopefully this is a good list for this topic.
It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler.
After upgrading my
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 03:11:23AM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
> >6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
> >upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency.
SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel compile, there is a noticeable lag to echo my typing or
scroll my browser windows, and playing an mp3 frequently cuts out for a
second or two. This did not happen on 6.3-RELEASE
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Eugene Grosbein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 03:11:23AM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
>> >It seems like there has been a regression in interactivity from
>> >6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using th
6.3-RELEASE to 7.0-RELEASE when using the SCHED_4BSD scheduler. After
upgrading my single-cpu amd64 box, 7.0 has much worse latency. When
running a kernel compile, there is a noticeable lag to echo my typing or
scroll my browser windows, and playing an mp3 frequently cuts out for a
second or
31 matches
Mail list logo
