<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:405958801;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2052964902 401104344 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7 ;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="FR" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I think what could be useful is to automatically add scheduling “weight” on vthread in the context of structured concurrency.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">(A bit like CPU request/limit at pod level in Kubernetes.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">For example, let’s say I have 2 vthreads on a server processing concurrent http requests (mostly CPU-bound).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If one of them forks 2 sub tasks with a structured concurrency scope, I would like that the weights of the 2 requests remain globally constant:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Initially:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">request 1: weight 1.0<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">request 2: weight 1.0<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">after fork:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">request 1 (blocked waiting for sub tasks)<o:p></o:p></span></li><ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">sub task 1: weight 0.5<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">sub task 2: weight 0.5<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">request 2: weight 1.0<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">if 3 cores available, the 3 actives tasks can run at 100% (and request1 will complete faster).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If 2 cores only, request 2 would be at 100% on a core, and the 2 sub tasks of request1 would get 50% of a core each, so request1 forking won’t have negative impact on
request 2.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In other words, that would allow to optimize for multicore (inside a request handler) without breaking scheduling fairness.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Arnaud</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
<br>
> On 5 Jan 2023, at 21:24, Robert Engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I think it would be better to be able to park/unpark on a monitor efficiently. </span>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think the overhead in handling that common case is more significant than expected.
<br>
<br>
We know; it’s work-in-progress, but will take some time.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> I like the idea of carrying over the Thread.priority in vthreads to allow finer control over the scheduling.
<br>
<br>
Scheduling with priorities can either be done well or fast but not both. Non-realtime kernels schedule relatively fast, but their priority implementation isn’t that good; realtime kernels do priorities well, but their scheduling is very slow (realtime always
trades off predictability for speed). Respecting priorities becomes even harder when there are lots and lots of threads, and problems such as priority inversion certainly don’t get easier. For the common cases where you have a small set of low-priority threads
doing work in the background, the easiest solution is just to use platform threads for those.<br>
<br>
As in the case of time-sharing, the need for priorities is something that will need to be demonstrated in real projects in the field to justify addressing.<br>
<br>
— Ron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<DIV>
Unless otherwise stated above:<BR>
<BR>
Compagnie IBM France<BR>
Siège Social : 17, avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex<BR>
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465<BR>
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.<BR>
Capital Social : 664 069 390,60 €<BR>
SIRET : 552 118 465 03644 - Code NAF 6203Z<BR>
</DIV></body>
</html>