on 15/05/2008 22:29 David Schwartz said the following:
quoted text
>> what if you have an infinite number of items on one side and finite
>>  number on the other, and you want to process them all (in infinite
>> time, of course). Would you still try to finish everything on one
>> side (the infinite one) or would you try to look at what you have
>> on the other side?
>> 
>> I am sorry about fuzzy wording of my original report, I should have
>>  mentioned "starvation" somewhere in it.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "fair share" when comparing an infinite
> quantity to a finite quantity. It is just as sensible to do 1 then 1
> as 10 then 10 or a billion then 1.
> 
> What I would do in this case is work on one side for one timeslice
> then the other side for one timeslice, continuuing until either side
> was finished, then I'd work exclusively on the other side. This is
> precisely the purpose for having timeslices in a scheduler.
> 
> The timeslice is carefully chosen so that it's not so long that you
> ignore a side for too long. It's also carefully chosen so that it's
> not so short that you spend all your time switching swides.
> 
> What sane schedulers do is assume that you want to make as much
> forward progress as quickly as possible. This means getting as many
> work units done per unit time as possible. This means as few context
> switches as possible.
> 
> A scheduler that switches significantly more often than once per
> timeslice with a load like this is *broken*. The purpose of the
> timeslice is to place an upper bound on the number of context
> switches in cases where forward progress can be made on more than one
> process. An ideal scheduler would not switch more often than once per
> timeslice unless it could not make further forward progress.
> 
> Real-world schedulers actually may allow one side to pre-empt the
> other, and may switch a bit more often than a scheduler that's
> "ideal" in the sense described above. This is done in an attempt to
> boost interactive performance.
> 
> But your basic assumption that strict alternation is desirable is
> massively wrong. That's the *worst* *possible* outcome.

David,

thank you for the tutorial, it is quite enlightening.
But first of all, did you take a look at my small test program?
There are 1 second sleeps in it, this is not about timeslices and 
scheduling at that level at all. This is about basic expectation about 
fairness of acquiring a lock at macro level. I know that when one thread 
acquires and releases and reacquires a mutex during 10 seconds while the 
other thread is blocked on that mutex for 10 seconds, then this is not 
about timeslices.

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