Hello,
I came across
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/glibcthreads.html
It seems to arouse a bit of confusion. _FIRST_ it says that scheduler
activations are BAD. Then it delves on the possible implementation of
Scheduler activations in Linux. Though I know that scheduler
activations are not part of the present kernel. Could anyone provide
BOTH the short and long answer to
a) If they were ever implemented?
b) Reasons for rejection?
TIA
--
Imanpreet Singh Arora
RTFM
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:38:45 +0530, Imanpreet Arora <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I came across
>
> http://people.redhat.com/drepper/glibcthreads.html
>
> It seems to arouse a bit of confusion. _FIRST_ it says that scheduler
> activations are BAD. Then it delves on the possible implementation of
> Scheduler activations in Linux. Though I know that scheduler
> activations are not part of the present kernel. Could anyone provide
> BOTH the short and long answer to
>
> a) If they were ever implemented?
> b) Reasons for rejection?
>
> TIA
>
> --
>
> Imanpreet Singh Arora
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey
<[email protected]> wrote:
> RTFM
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:36:58 +0530, Hong Kong Phoey
<[email protected]> wrote:
> RTFM
I don't mind RTFM but do you care to provide the M. That is if you have any.
--
Imanpreet Singh Arora
El Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:46:42 +0530,
Imanpreet Arora <[email protected]> escribi?:
> I don't mind RTFM but do you care to provide the M. That is if you have any.
What "Update: this document is obsolete" means is that the document is obsolete.
Probably it should include a link to http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nptl-design.pdf