Re: RBTree implementation and thread structure

On 14/04/2008, André Braga <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Axel Dörfler <[email protected]> wrote:
>  >  I wouldn't mind either - having two good schedulers to choose from is
>  >  definitely better than having no option :-)
>  >  I wouldn't mind if both would follow a different approach, though.
>  >  Looking at FreeBSD benchmarks, the CFS performs rather poorly in
>  >  comparison (well, not to our current one, anyway).
>
>
> I'm a big fan of Jeff's work as well :)
>
>  Anyway, I'd rather go the "cooperation" route than the "competition"
>  route. Of course, this is just the way *I* feel about this; if one
>  wishes to crush me, be my guest :D

I won't crush anyone, don't worry. As I said, OHCI is my priority.

>
>  Salvo, I have you on my Google Talk list. Maybe we should chat about it? :)
>

I've already added you. Of course we should.


As for the CFS, I'm not a big fun of it.

Regards,
-- 
Salvatore Benedetto (a.k.a. emitrax)
Student of Computer Engineer
University of Pisa
www.haiku-os.it

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone