Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:26:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:26:08 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:62693 "EHLO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:26:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:31:09 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Peter Svensson Cc: Michael Sinz , "Bill Huey (Hui)" , Peter Waechtler , , ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Offtopic: (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1071 Lines: 29 On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Svensson wrote: > For raytracers (which was the example) you need almost no coordination at > all. Just partition the scene and you are done. This is going offtopic > fast. The point I was making is that there is really no great reward in > grouping threads. Either you need to educate your users and trust them to > behave, or you need per user scheduling. I've got per user scheduling. I'm currently porting it to 2.4.19 (and having fun with some very subtle bugs) and am thinking about how to port this beast to the O(1) scheduler in a clean way. Note that it's not necessarily per user, it's trivial to adapt the code to use any other resource container instead. regards, Rik -- A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/