Design approaches for the Kokyu based DSRT scheduler/dispatcher
--------------------------------------------------------

The DSRT schedulers in this directory use the Kokyu DSRT
dispatching classes present in $ACE_ROOT/Kokyu. These
act as wrappers/adapters around the Kokyu DSRT dispatcher.
The Kokyu DSRT dispatcher is responsible for scheduling
threads which ask the dispatcher to schedule themselves.
Currently there are two implementations for the Kokyu
DSRT dispatcher. One uses a condition-variable based
approach for scheduling threads and the other manipulates
priorities of threads and relies on the OS scheduler for
dispatching the threads appropriately.

CV-based approach
-----------------
In this approach, it is assumed that the threads "yield"
on a regular basis to the scheduler by calling
update_scheduling_segment. Only one thread is running at
any point in time. All the other threads are blocked
on a condition variable. When the currently running
thread yields, it will cause the condition variable
to be signalled. All the eligible threads are stored
in a scheduler queue (rbtree), the most eligible thread
determined by the scheduling discipline. This approach
has the drawback that it requires a cooperative
threading model, where threads yield voluntarily
on a regular basis. The application threads are
responsible for doing this voluntary yielding.

OS-based approach
-----------------
This approach relies on the OS scheduler to do the
actual thread dispatching. The Kokyu DSRT dispatcher manipulates
the priorities of the threads. The scheduler maintains
a queue (rbtree) of threads. The scheduler also has
an executive thread, which runs at the maximum available
priority. This thread runs in a continuous loop until
the dispatcher is shut down. The executive thread is
responsible for selecting the most eligible thread from
the scheduler queue and bump up its priority if necessary
while bumping down the priority of the currently running
thread, if it is not the most eligible. There are four
priority levels required for this mechanism to work,
listed in descending order of priorities. For example,
a thread running at Active priority will preempt a
thread running at Inactive priority level.

1. Executive priority - priority at which the scheduler
   executive thread runs.
2. Blocked priority - this is the priority to which
   threads about to block on remote calls will be bumped
   up to.
3. Active priority - this is the priority to which
   the most eligible thread is set to.
4. Inactive priority - this is the priority to which
   all threads except the most eligible thread is set
   to.

As soon as a thread asks to be scheduled, a
wrapper object is created and inserted into the queue.
This object carries the qos (sched params) associated
with that thread. A condition variable is signalled
to inform the executive thread that the queue is
"dirty". The scheduler thread picks up the most
eligble one and sets its priority to "active" and
sets the currently running thread priority to
"inactive".

The drawback to this approach is that it relies on
the OS scheduler to dispatch the threads. Also,
with the current implementation, there is only
one thread running at active priority and others
are all at "inactive" level. This will create
undesirable effects with multi-processor systems,
which could select any one of the "inactive" level
threads and this could cause priority inversions.

How to write a new DSRT scheduler using Kokyu
---------------------------------------------
One can use one of the schedulers as a starting
point. The variation points are

1. The scheduler parameters that need to be propagated
   along with the service context.
2. The QoS comparison function, that determines which
   thread is more eligible.

To aid (1), we have created a Svc_Ctxt_DSRT_QoS idl
interface (see ./Kokyu_qos.pidl). This interface
currently has the necessary things to be propagated
for FP, MIF and MUF schedulers. This can be altered
if necessary to accommodate new sched params. The
idea here is to let the IDL compiler generate the
marshalling code (including Any operators) so that
these parameters can be shipped across in the
service context in an encapsulated CDR.

To create customized QoS comparator functions, we
used the idea of C++ traits to let the user define
customized comparator functions. For example, the
MIF scheduler uses the following traits class.

  struct MIF_Scheduler_Traits
  {
    typedef RTScheduling::Current::IdType Guid_t;

    struct _QoSDescriptor_t
    {
      typedef long Importance_t;
      Importance_t importance_;
    };

    typedef _QoSDescriptor_t QoSDescriptor_t;

    typedef Kokyu::MIF_Comparator<QoSDescriptor_t> QoSComparator_t;

    class _Guid_Hash
    {
    public:
      u_long operator () (const Guid_t& id)
      {
        return ACE::hash_pjw ((const char *) id.get_buffer (),
                              id.length ());
      }
    };

    typedef _Guid_Hash Guid_Hash;
  };

The idea of traits makes the Kokyu dispatcher more flexible
in terms of creating new schedulers. For example, the
Kokyu classes do not care about what concrete type
Guid is. It could be an OctetSequence for some applications,
whereas it could be an int for some others. The exact type
is defined by the application (in this case, the MIF scheduler)
using the traits class. In the above traits class the
Guid's type is defined to be an octet sequence (indirectly).
The Kokyu dispatcher expects the following typedef's to
be present in the traits class:

Guid_t - Type of GUID.
QoSDescriptor_t - aggregate for scheduler parameters
QoSComparator_t - used by the scheduler queue to determine most eligible item
Guid_Hash - used by the internal hash map in the scheduler to hash the guid.

It is also expected that the following operator be defined
for comparing QoS parameters. This comparator function
will be used by the scheduler queue to determine
the most eligible item in the queue.

QoSComparator_t::operator ()(const QoSDescriptor_t& qos1,
            const QoSDescriptor_t& qos2)

Future work
-----------
1. It looks like there is a general structure to the
   different schedulers. May be this can be abstracted
   using templates or some similar mechanism.

2. Thread sched policy and sched scope are currently
   being passed explicitly from the application to
   the scheduler. This can be changed later to get
   this information from the ORB. This requires the
   usage of RTORB and the actual values can be set
   using svc.conf parameters for RT_ORB_Loader.

3. See whether the approaches could be extended
   to multiprocessor systems.

