[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Position paper
From: |
Pierre THIERRY |
Subject: |
Re: Position paper |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:45:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Scribit Tom Bachmann dies 06/01/2007 hora 19:26:
> I don't think cpu time pools are to be passed to servers. Although
> this would increase accounting, it would as well horrify the
> complexity of the server and require special kernel support, as has
> been discussed on the list (or on coyotos-dev?).
Won't Coyotos has scheduler activations, or the primitives needed to
implement them? I thought they would make such designs relatively easy
to implement? (but I confess I did not dig the issue of scheduler
activations deeply, and I barely grasp the concept...)
Curiously,
Pierre
--
address@hidden
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature