> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 17:18:43 +0300 > Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 08/06/2018 15:27, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 20:14:10 +0300 > > > Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > >> On 03/05/2018 12:41, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > >>> I think that we need preemption policies that might not be expressible > > >>> as one or > > >>> two numbers. A policy could be something like this: > > >>> - interrupt threads can preempt only threads from "lower" classes: > > >>> real-time, > > >>> kernel, timeshare, idle; > > >>> - interrupt threads cannot preempt other interrupt threads > > >>> - real-time threads can preempt other real-time threads and threads > > >>> from "lower" > > >>> classes: kernel, timeshare, idle > > >>> - kernel threads can preempt only threads from lower classes: > > >>> timeshare, idle > > >>> - interactive timeshare threads can only preempt batch and idle threads > > >>> - batch threads can only preempt idle threads > > >> > > >> > > >> Here is a sketch of the idea: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D15693 > > >> > > > > > > What about SCHED_4BSD? Or is this just an example and you chose > > > SCHED_ULE for it? > > > > I haven't looked at SCHED_4BSD code at all. > > > > I hope you will eventually because that's what I use. I find its > scheduling of interactive processes much better than ULE.
+1 Bruce Evans may have some info and/or changes here too. -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
