RE: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question
"Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.phil,gmane.linux.kernel.aio.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> From: Dan Kegel [mailto:[email protected]] > > Jamie Lokier is heading down the KSE / kernel activations > pathway because he still thinks kernel threads are wrong. > The discussion is under the subject "Scheduler activations (IIRC) question": Last year I was playing with a similar concept, but kind of bailed out because it still didn't solve all the complexities that M:N had -- however, AFAIR, his interest in more in doing very low weight threads, right? kind of co-routines; probably it is worth for that case Having worked on NGPT more than I am willing to admit, I would not touch M:N threading again even with a yardstick; for simple threading it works--but when you want to do complex synchronization with good timing, it is not worth anymore. Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)