about the L4Linux scheduler
adam at os.inf.tu-dresden.de
Sun Oct 7 15:08:20 CEST 2007
On Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 06:35:28 +0900, Lin wrote:
> > It's the idle thread. It is running when no other activity is in the
> > L4Linux system. It just sits there are waits for things to happen.
> > > And more, What is the thread "l4lx.idler" used for ??
> > It wakes up the idle thread when work is to be done.
> "l4lx.idler" is created by "l4lx.cpu0" in "l4x_idle" and its start
> function is "idler_func" (in "arch/l4/kernel/dispatch.c").
> But this function only executes
> while(1) l4_sleep_forever();
> so I can't understand how "l4lx_idler" wakes up "l4lx_cpu0".
> It seems to only sleep.
This thread sends exception IPCs to the idle thread upon request of
interrupt threads. Its actual code does not matter.
> > > (4) What does the function "l4x_user_dispatcher" do ?
> > > How to switch contexts in Linux and in L4 almost at the same
> > > time ? (in 3)
> > Context switching in L4 is done by the kernel (Fiasco). Also note that
> > the L4Linux server itself runs in an L4 thread and thus Fiasco is doing
> > context switches when switching from a user process (L4 thread) to the
> > L4Linux server (another L4 thread). This basically happens when the IPCs
> > are sent. The context switch in the other direction happens when the
> > L4Linux server replies the user process.
> > The context switches in the Linux server happen inside the schedule()
> > call, the L4 side is not affected by this, as it basically only means
> > that the Linux server switches to another stack.
> > > - If Linux server gets IPC for some reasons, it wakes up and check
> > > the IPC sender. Then, if the sender is a thread corresponds to
> > > certain Linux task, Linux server wakes up this Linux task and
> > > reschedules by calling "schedule()".
> > I don't quite understand what you want to say. If the Linux server gets
> > an IPC it has to handle this request (Pagefault, syscall...). If the
> > Linux system wants to reschedule, schedule() is called so that another
> > context may be selected.
> I may have some misunderstanding...
> Could you check the following things ?
> (1) When a L4 thread which is runnig as a Linux task is scheduled by
> L4, is the Linux task ("task_struct" instance) corresponds to the
> L4 thread scheduled as "l4lx.cpu0" by Linux scheduler ?
> (Of course, "l4lx.cpu0" is not scheduled by L4 at this time.)
> For example, there are two user processes A and B in Linux server now.
> There are two threads (tasks) corresponds to A and B in L4, and there
> are two "task_struct" instances (both of them only execute the loop of
> "l4x_user_dispatcher") in Linux system.
> When the L4 thread of A is running (scheduled by Fiasco), the context
> of "l4lx.cpu0" is "task_struct" of A.
> If Fiasco switches the running thread from A to B, the context of
> "l4lx.cpu0" is changed to "task_struct" of B after ? (or no change ?)
> In other words, are the active L4 thread of Linux process and the L4
> thread the context of "l4lx.cpu0" corresponds to always the same ?
Fiasco can never switch from A to B directly as both are never ready at
the same time. The switch order is always A -> Linux-server -> B.
Besides that the active context of the Linux server always corresponds
to the L4 thread currently active, as you already stated.
Adam adam at os.inf.tu-dresden.de
More information about the l4-hackers