Re: Position paper
Pierre THIERRY <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.hurd.l4 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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 -- [email protected] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFpBsFxe13INnVDYoRAitUAJsFEJZ/z2+NN8voSt0wI3QRAX9aAwCg98pc cSAmfihwn9Oln9XjLTeOg5A= =33zt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----