Re: [openbeos] Re: GSoC ticket #1069 (thread scheduler) application

On 2007-04-10 at 03:15:55 [+0200], André Braga <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/9/07, Ingo Weinhold <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > please repost on the kernel mailing list. I believe you miss some kernel
> > developers (e.g. Travis?) when posting here.
> 
> I did!
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=2ad73a0704081600k6eeb8a5bh6a3231f67e588725%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=open-beos-kernel-devel
> 
> Perhaps some spam filter thought my mail was junk? =P

Ah, no, sorry. I just seemed to have missed it there.

> P.s.: no remarks, no comments, no suggestions whatsoever?

I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the scheduling area. I last heard 
something about it as a student 7 or 8 years ago, and more intriguing 
algorithms weren't covered either.

Generally, we're focussing on desktop use, not server (max throughput), nor 
real time applications. So, I believe, we want a scheduler with low 
latencies and acceptable throughput. Performance and complexity should be 
reasonably balanced. IMHO, a GA approach is over the top, as is your 
specialized memory allocator idea.

Regarding memory usage, I think it's not that much of an issue. While it's 
generally prudent to have an eye on kernel memory usage, a few bytes more 
in struct thread won't be a problem -- even with thousand threads (a rather 
unusual case I'd say) it's only some KB after all. So, freely add what you 
need and don't do nasty tricks just to save a few bytes.

CU, Ingo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV