Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] plugsched-2.0 patches ...

From: Con Kolivas
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 11:50:12 EST


Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote:
Paraphrasing Jens Axboe:

I don't think you can compare [plugsched with the plugio framework].
Yes they are both schedulers, but that's about where the 'similarity'
stops. The CPU scheduler must be really fast, overhead must be kept
to a minimum. For a disk scheduler, we can affort to burn cpu cycles
to increase the io performance. The extra abstraction required to
fully modularize the cpu scheduler would come at a non-zero cost as
well, but I bet it would have a larger impact there. I doubt you
could measure the difference in the disk scheduler.


Modularization usually is done through a level of indirection (function
pointers). I have a can of "indirection be gone" almost ready to spray over
the plugsched framework that would reduce the overhead to zero at runtime.
I'd be happy to finish that work if it makes it more palpable to integrate a
plugsched framework into the kernel?

The indirection was a minor point. On modern cpus it was suggested by wli that this would not be a demonstrable hit in perormance. Having said that, I'm sure Peter would be happy for another developer. I know how tiring and lonely it can feel maintaining such a monster.

Cheers,
Con

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature