Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:07:09 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [POC][RFC][PATCH] sched: Extended Scheduler Time Slice |
| |
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 10:53:38 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> I don't have an informed opinion on whether the proposed heuristic is a > good idea or not, but it should definitely be implemented as an
If you want to get an informed opinion, you can start here: ;-)
Thomas's first reply that had me think about this solution:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87cyyfxd4k.ffs@tglx/
My reply that started it:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231024103426.4074d319@gandalf.local.home/
> extension to rseq as suggested by Peter. I've even made the whole rseq > ABI extensible to accommodate those additional use-cases. > > In the initial rounds of rseq implementation, I even called rseq "kTLS" > because I expected it to be extended and eventually become an ABI that > contains various per-thread fields which are shared between kernel and > userspace. > > So don't let the specific naming of the rseq system call stop you from > extending it for other purposes when per-thread shared memory between > kernel and userspace is needed. Setting up various per-thread areas like > this on thread creation is not free: it requires additional system calls > on thread creation. It really makes no sense to have more than one.
Thanks for the feedback Mathieu. This may indeed be the interface I am looking for.
-- Steve
| |