Re: switching schedulers (Re: SCHED_ULE should not be the defaul

Le 16 d=E9c. 2011 =E0 22:51, Doug Barton a =E9crit :

> On 12/16/2011 13:40, Michel Talon wrote:
>> Adrian Chadd said:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Hi all,
>>>=20
>>> Can someone load a kernel module dynamically at boot-time?
>>>=20
>>> Ie, instead of compiling it in, can 4bsd/ule be loaded as a KLD at=20=

>>> boot-time, so the user can just change by rebooting?
>>>=20
>>> That may be an acceptable solution for now.
>>=20
>> As Luigi explained, the problem is not to have code for both
>> schedulers residing in the kernel, the problem is to migrate
>> processes from one scheduler to the other.
>=20
> I think dynamically switching schedulers on a running system and =
loading
> one or the other at boot time are different problems, are they not?
>=20

Of course, you are perfectly right., and i had misunderstood Adrian's =
post.
But if the problem is only to change scheduler by rebooting,
i think it is no more expensive to compile a kernel with the other =
scheduler. Or is it that people
never compile kernels nowadays?  The ability to switch scheduler on a =
running machine
would certainly be a more desirable way to test the best adaptation of =
the system to the load.

To come back to the problems in question about ULE i must say i don't =
see obvious=20
malfunctions for my own use (i had some problems of this sort long ago, =
but they
disappeared with more recent FreeBSD).

>=20
> Doug
>=20
>=20

--

Michel Talon
talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr

_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"