On Saturday 28 October 2006 12:36, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> Julian > > > > As you are emphasizing fairness, I must say I don't believe fairness in > > libpthread either, > > you mean you don't think it is a good idea or that you don't think it > works? (sorry, I know that your english is way better than my > chinese ;-) > I meant I don't think libpthread's userland scheduler + ksegrp in kernel has implemented fairness between threads correctly. > > I don't think writing a fairness scheduler is an > > easy work, does kernel have made fairness for threads in same ksegrp, > > so does libpthread's userland scheduler ? > > The kernel is only responsible for making sure that one ksegrp > (usually a process in my original idea) is not unfair to another > ksegrp. > What happens within the ksegrp is not it's interest. And no it > isn't an easy thing to do which is why I had hoped that some > PhD student would have taken it up by now :-) > > > they don't, it can make threads > > in same ksegrp misbehaviored, so what we have done is still process > > scheduling fairness even there is ksegrp in kernel, and now sacrificed > > fairness between threads. > > once again, I'm not sure what you mean by that. >Received on Sat Oct 28 2006 - 02:56:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:01 UTC