Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 03:19:02 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Critical Sections for userland. Message-ID: <20071004101902.GN31826@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <86ejgbqjvr.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20071003015231.GJ31826@elvis.mu.org> <86zlyzqmgo.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20071004094821.GM31826@elvis.mu.org> <86ejgbqjvr.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> [071004 03:01] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> writes: > > Do you have: > > > > a) Evidence or a paper to prove that this is a bad idea? > > I need evidence or a paper to prove that it is a bad idea to allow a > userland process to hold the CPU indefinitely? > > > b) A helpful suggestion? > > Why don't you tell us what you're actually trying to do, so we can tell > you how to do it. > > > c) An obvious understanding of the problem? > > I'll show you mine if you show me yours. It's not worth my time to engage someone with your mind set, you posses neither the technical nor interpersonal skill to be useful to me. For context see my replies in this thread to Kip Macy which explains how one deals with the false-problems you mention. For evidence of existing, however suboptimal, run-to-completion systems see the RTPRIO scheduling knobs. -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071004101902.GN31826>