MESSAGE
| DATE | 2015-03-07 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [LIU Comp Sci] Operating Systems class submition
|
From owner-learn-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Sat Mar 7 22:34:31 2015
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 79D0E1612F0; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:34:31 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: learn-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id 5F5761612FA; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:34:31 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: learn-at-nylxs.com
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8076C1612F0
for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:34:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.0.0.19] (unknown [96.57.23.82])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2A6D10B1B;
Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:34:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54FBC32E.3070609-at-panix.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:34:06 -0500
From: Ruben Safir
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tehreem , keisha.sylvester-at-my.liu.edu,
"rshanashurriah-at-gmail.com" ,
justinml-at-gmail.com, learn-at-nylxs.com
Subject: [LIU Comp Sci] Operating Systems class submition
References: <2B450783-936B-4340-AF4E-CFC0A38B8037-at-gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2B450783-936B-4340-AF4E-CFC0A38B8037-at-gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-learn-at-mrbrklyn.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: learn-at-mrbrklyn.com
On 03/02/2015 04:49 PM, Tehreem wrote:
> This is what Keisha, Maneesh and I came up with. It’s just a draft, you guys can edit it further if you like but we’re kind of tight on schedule since we have to submit scope and questions of interest with the topic of our paper.
>
Yeah, this is completely not going to work. If you want to just drop
something in his lap and hope he doesn't notice, then go ahead with this
but this is NOT in the correct format. He is ASKING FOR ORIGINAL
RESEARCH. What you need to do is write a hypothesis that you chose to
QUESTION and then the plan you have in order to prove the hypothesis.
CS-635 Operating Systems
Group Project
Topic: Process Scheduling
Team Composition:
Justin
Keisha Sylvester
Maneesh Kongara
Rshana Suhrriah
Ruben Saffir
Tehreem Mirza
Background: From the beginning of operating system design, how to
schedule tasks, processes and jobs has been at the very front of the
debates and designs of operating systems. From the earliest batch
systems, all the way to today's multitasking cloud and cluster
environments, just how to schedule CPU time and tasks has sparks
controversy and been at the forefront of Operating Systems Research.
The standard Linux kernel today uses what is called the Completely Fair
Scheduler, an algorithm spearheaded by Mike Galbraith and which was
included into the Linux Kernel under the direction of Linus Tovalds.
But this has not been without controversy.
While certain aspects of scheduling have to take place on the Kernel
level, after all timers need to be set and interrupts handled, how much
should be implemented in kernel space has remained a question. One
thing is clear, when it comes to Operating System Scheduling, not all
users need the same kind of scheduling and how the operating system
schedules largely defined the operating systems personality.
In 2009, developers with focus on embedded systems, particularly
embedded systems within industry and robots, wanted to have a Linux
Kernel with real time capability. The advantages of having a completely
free implementation of a Real Time Operating system would be a huge boon
for these developers, particularly since they are often short on cash
but long intellectual firepower. Out of this efforts came -rt Patchset
Scheduling Algorithm which was reviewed in the Linux Journal by Ankita
Garg in August of 2009.1
Le Trung Thang, on April 24th, 2012 in Embedded Magazine did a review
and comparision between the normal preemptive operating system design of
Linux which is "rescheduled" with the RT patch, as compared to some of
the more standard RTOS and outlines the problems that need to be
overcome. 2 Thang concludes:
"Conclusion: Viewed in this context, the typical RTOS scheduler is just
a special case of real time Linux scheduler, or in other words, the RTOS
scheduler is the real time Linux scheduler running with the Round Robin
policy. (Some RTOSes allow configuration of the scheduler to run in a
non-preemption mode. However this mode is seldom used.)"
Project and Analysis: Our purpose is to peer review the work published
by Thang and to find support or a lack of support for his position based
on both source code evaluation and compilation trials. After thi, we
will look at possibly newer research on real time scheduling problems
and see how new ideas have succeeded or failed in wild.
1:http://www.linuxjournal.com/magazine/real-time-linux-kernel-scheduler
2:
http://www.embedded.com/design/operating-systems/4371651/Comparing-the-real-time-scheduling-policies-of-the-Linux-kernel-and-an-RTOS-
|
|
