Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:20:23 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> Cc: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith), scrappy@hub.org, freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kudos... Message-ID: <199802272320.PAA29371@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Feb 1998 04:34:44 EST." <199802260934.EAA27051@hda.hda.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > > The only thing that I don't know if can be fixed (or even matters), but > > > x11amp does generate: > > > > > > sched_setscheduler: Function not implemented > > > > > > It doesn't seem to affect performance or how it operates though... > > > > No; this is (sort of) the Linux equivalent of the FreeBSD rtprio stuff. > > x11amp is attempting to change the scheduling algorithm that's applied > > to it to improve its chances of keeping up. > > > > We had some Posix scheduler stuff done, but I think we fumbled the > > ball. If Peter Dufault is still around he would be able to answer that > > better. > > > > Peter? > > I'm half around. I fumbled that ball. We all fumbled it. Put the scourge away. 8) > There are patches that probably won't apply anymore on freefall. > They are too ambitious for the time I have, adding a "level 0" > implementation of all new POSIX stuff so that you can test for > feature presense and add pieces in via an LKM. Is the original submitter still around? Jordan was agonising over not having run with his work as-was the other night. > I wanted to add everything in one swell foop for consistency. Take > a look at the patches and see if you agree I went too far - I think > they are in ~ftp/pub/dufault/posix4.tgz. I don't actually think this *does* go too far. I certainly see the value in consistency, and in particular if we haven't completely dispirited the original author, they're more likely to look after it if we adopt their entire design. > This weekend I'll try to strip out only the scheduler sections and > commit that to current. I'd go with the whole thing. You'll want to stick your copyright in there &c. The system call question you ask; I would go with option 3. The only existing implementation I was able to find was theirs, and unless there is a major difficulty with implementing that model, it would make maintaining compatability somewhat easier. Thanks, and it's good to know you're still around! -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802272320.PAA29371>