Wine scheduling and threading issues [was Re: Threading issues...]
kernel at kolivas.org
Sun Jan 16 00:28:29 CST 2005
Jeremy White wrote:
> Hi all,
> This is simply a renaming and reorganizing post; Dimi wacked me
> with a clue bat, and I am now looping Ingo Molnar into this
> conversation (and I am doing it at great haste since he
> made noises about helping <grin>).
> The thread started here:
> picked up a bit here:
> (the multiple URLs are entirely due to the apparent failing
> of hypermail to span month boundaries).
> I've asserted that a large obstacle we face is our inability
> to replicate the Windows concept of thread priorities.
> Ove recently added what struck me as a very interesting suggestion:
>> The biggest problem is that there is no way to say to the kernel that
>> one thread is more important than another without permanently renicing
>> all other threads. A potential kernel solution to the problem would be
>> to implement process scoping in the kernel, i.e.
>> pthread_attr_setscope(attr, PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS)
>> and then allow threads scoped this way to be set to high priority, since
>> with a process scope, these threads should only preempt other threads in
>> the same process (i.e. Wine), not threads run by other Linux apps, and
>> thus the security concerns of elevated priority threads are irrelevant.
>> Allowing a process-scoped thread to set the scheduling policy to
>> SCHED_RR in order to inhibit the kernel's interactivity priority boost
>> system would also help.
> And that brings us up to date.
I posted a patch for SCHED_BOUND to do just such a thing to the linux
kernel mailing list 2 months ago. Noone responded so I didn't pursue it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20050116/46575d1a/signature.pgp
More information about the wine-devel