New Scheduler Available for FreeBSD

flynn_nrg writes "Luigi Rizzo, one of the FreeBSD developers, has just finished the code for a new scheduler. From the announcement: '...as promised, a first version of the Proportional Share scheduler that we developed is available here. These are for a recent -STABLE (i think any version from 4.4 should work; the only 3 files modified are kern_synch.c, kern_switch.c and proc.h, plus a one-line change to kern_exit.c). I have tested it a little bit on a diskless system, and it seems to survive running a full X session with the usual set of xterm, netscape etc. while i do a "renice" of the processes and even switch back and forth between schedulers. But do not trust this yet for a production system!' Read the full post here."

Comments

No clue what Proportional Share Scheduling is?

[arnoroefs2000]

There's more info here.

Excerpt:

"There are compelling reasons to use proportional share scheduling techniques to support multimedia and other soft real-time applications on general-purpose operating systems. First, proportional share (PS) schedulers are a good match for existing infrastructure such as a periodic timer interrupt and mechanisms for assigning priorities to applications -- priorities can be mapped to shares in a proportional-share environment. Second, PS schedulers provide stronger guarantees to applications than do traditional time-sharing schedulers: they allocate a specific fraction of the CPU to each thread, and some schedulers provide error bounds on the allocation rate. Third, PS schedulers have clear semantics during underload: excess CPU time is allocated fairly, in contrast with some reservation-based schedulers that must idle or back off to a secondary scheduling policy once all application budgets are exhausted."

0(1) scheduler

[Sivar]

Is FreeBSD's new one a 0(1) scheduler?
0(1) is a "term" from computer science. When applied to schedulers, it basically means that no matter how many processes there are to schedule, a 0(1) scheduler's overhead will not significantly increase.
Of course, with a small number of threads/processes to schedule, the Linux 0(1) scheduler will have greater initial overhead. It isn't until there are quite a few processes that it starts to show its power, and the more processes there are, the more useful it is.
On a busy server with 4+ processors and thousands of processes, a standard scheduler's overhead is so great that it often exceeds the overhead of most of the individual server processes.

FreeBSD ~= Security

[Sivar]

I am not going to claim that FreeBSD is perfect, but FreeBSD is more secure than the vast majority of Linux-based OSes. It has supported features like the new "GR Security" patch for years, and because it shares a great deal of code with OpenBSD which is audited frequently, it benefits from their work as well.
Of note is that FreeBSD's libc is just over half the size of Linux's Glibc (not that has a thing to do with security)

With FreeBSD, for years, admins have been able to set certain files as "append only" (so even root can only add to, not remove from, log files) and "immutable" (so even root cannot modify or delete the file) and has been able to set firewall rules to the same (immutable) so that creative crackers can't add their personal favorites if they root the system.
This can of course be bypassed by restarting the machine in single-user mode and redusing the kernel security level, but that isn't going to be very easy for your average remote hacker. :)

Furthermore, since 4.0 you can multiple run complete but separate entire copies of FreeBSD on the same system, each with their own FreeBSD system files and such. You can have a single server run an instance of FreeBSD for Apache, one for Postfix, one for BIND, etc. and if any one of them does get compromised (say, BIND since that happens entirely too often) the cracker can not only not effect any of the other instances--he/she cannot even see that they exist! Very interesting stuff.
Of course, IMHO Linux is worlds ahead of FreeBSD on the desktop front, and the new GRsecurity and ACL features will be a real competitor for the *BSD family. It will be most fascinating to see how things turn out. I wish the best to both of them, and I use both of them every day.

Re:Darwin?

[Sivar]

The scheduler is closely tied with the kernel, and MacOSX does not use the FreeBSD kernel at all. It uses the Mach kernel, which is not only a different kernel entirely but a different core kernel philosophy. Mach is a microkernel whereas FreeBSD's is a monolithic kernel. Both types have their advantages and disadvantages, but microkernels are vastly superior for a commercial OS and for driver installations. Monolithic kernels are theoretically faster and easier to implement.

MacOSX gets its BSD label by using the BSD userland utilities. It is great that Mac's OS is no longer junk. In three months I went from "Macs are toy computers for kiddies and Photoshop pros" to "Wow--I can replace every PC and OS in my house with a single Mac! Great desktop, good server, and all the power of Unix."
I have never been happier with the state of Apple Inc.

Re:Darwin?

[Drishmung]

Not quite. This link gives quite bit more background about Darwin. In particular:

Part of the history of Mac OS X goes back to Berkeley Software Distributions (BSD) UNIX of the early seventies. Specifically, it is based in part on BSD 4.4 Lite. On a system level, many of the design decisions are made to align with BSD-style UNIX systems. Many of the libraries are derived from NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/), while many of the utilities are from FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/). For future development, Mac OS X has adopted FreeBSD as a reference code base for BSD technology. Work is ongoing to more closely synchronize all BSD tools and libraries with the FreeBSD-stable branch.

Although Mac OS X must credit BSD for most of the underlying levels of the operating system, Mac OS X also owes a major debt to Mach. The kernel is heavily influenced in its design philosophy by Carnegie Mellon's Mach project. The kernel is not a pure microkernel implementation though since the address space is shared with BSD processes.

The Mac OS X kernel (also known as XNU) is a monolithic kernel (unlike Mach, but like Linux and xBSD) with Mach and BSD sitting side-by-side.

Some earlier Apple Unix efforts were true micro kernel implementations. This was also driven by the attraction of a pure hardware abstraction layer. With Darwin this seems to have moved to a more pragmatic recognition that performance matters.

In Darwin, the Mach bits handle memory management, IPC and device drivers. BSD handles users and permissions, the network stack, the virtual file system and POSIX.

So, this won't directly benefit Darwin, though if it is generally useful then someone/anyone can try and put it into Darwin---long live open source! I confess I don't know how the Mach part of Darwin handles scheduling, though I had heard that the Mach VM and scheduling was pretty good.