Originally posted by unwind-protect
View Post
Rust-Written Linux Scheduler Showing Promising Results For Gaming Performance
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ssokolow View Post
It's an eBPF thing. What it's written in doesn't matter any more than what "compile-to-JavaScript" things like Google Clojure are written in because all the kernel ever sees is eBPF bytecode.
The thing is, the bytecode you feed the processor must be correct, or you have bugs. Rust eliminates many of these bugs. And due to the coding model it's easier to write high level code in Rust as you are working at a higher level than C
Similarly, the program you write for ebpf must be written by someone. You can do it manually (ebpf code) in a difficult way (c compiled to ebpf) or properly (rust compiled to ebpf)
granted, this is an area where rust shows least amount of benefit because the target is so restricted C cannot really shoot itself in the foot. If your c coded program compiles and loads in ebpf it either works or does not, no undefined behavior like c is famous for.Last edited by varikonniemi; 21 January 2024, 11:57 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
Don't you understand? All in any case ever the processor sees is binary code. Still Rust has it's properties.
The thing is, the bytecode you feed the processor must be correct, or you have bugs. Rust eliminates many of these bugs. And due to the coding model it's easier to write high level code in Rust as you are working at a higher level than C
Similarly, the program you write for ebpf must be written by someone. You can do it manually (ebpf code) in a difficult way (c compiled to ebpf) or properly (rust compiled to ebpf)
granted, this is an area where rust shows least amount of benefit because the target is so restricted C cannot really shoot itself in the foot. If your c coded program compiles and loads in ebpf it either works or does not, no undefined behavior like c is famous for.
The comment you replied to was in response to one that gives me strong "I think this is Rust replacing C in a non-eBPF context and I don't agree" vibes.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Anux View PostHave fun with your MSDOS and one program at a time ...
On real hardware, we can run only a single task at once, so we have to introduce the concept of "virtual runtime."
They don't even have to spend a lot to redesign the CPU, they could add a small dedicated chip on the motherboard with microcode who;s only function is to assign threads.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sophisticles View PostIf AMD, and intel, really wanted to innovate instead of looking to add more cores with every release they would look to create add a hardware thread scheduler right on the CPU, so that the kernel wouldn't have to decide how to assign threads, the CPU would do that,
They don't even have to spend a lot to redesign the CPU, they could add a small dedicated chip on the motherboard with microcode who;s only function is to assign threads.
TL;DR: The common thread in those cases was trying to add CPU-level smarts and complexity reminiscent of what​ you're proposing and, right now, what AMD and Intel are struggling when benchmarked against Apple Silicon is the legacy baggage of not being able to ditch the complex instruction x86 ISA necessitates being slapped on top of an internally RISC chip for a long time now. (Specifically, the fact that instructions can't be decoded in parallel SIMD style because x86 has variable-length opcodes.)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by sophisticles View PostI suggest you read this:
If AMD, and intel, really wanted to innovate instead of looking to add more cores with every release they would look to create add a hardware thread scheduler right on the CPU, so that the kernel wouldn't have to decide how to assign threads, the CPU would do that
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
The issue though is that there is no definition here on what nice value counts as background and which ones that counts as foreground so AFAIK the scheduler does not takes this into account when determining if to put threads on a E-core or P-core. And SCHED_IDLE+SCHED_BATCH simply tells the system that you only want to run on whatever cpu time is left after everyone else have run so that is not really something to base E vs P on.
Comment
-
Comment