Instances of lazy scheduling and timeslice donation in L4 implementations

[Sergio Ruocco]

Kevin Elphinstone wrote:
> Arrgghhh, here we go again.... I don't have enough time in my life
> for yet another scheduling debate, so I'll summarize my view in the
> hope

Probably the second classic debate after Emacs vs vi !

> So rather than argue over details of how lazy-scheduling "should" or

I am just trying to understand what's there in the gulf between
specifications and implementations of L4 scheduling, an area which look
subtly underspecified and/or mis-implemented. The more debate and POV we
get on it, the better.

> And no matter which model you require (except for maybe the first),
> your likely to have to audit the code to confirm your expected
> behaviour if your relying on it.

My specific problem WRT scheduling is that I want to be able to rely on 
behaviour as "in the spec", and not worry about details and 
optimisations in the various implementations, but probably I am 
daydreaming...:-)

	Sergio


-- 

--

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~sruocco/
ERTOS Researcher                                              Lecturer
National ICT Australia Ltd.              University of New South Wales

This email and any attachments are confidential. They may contain
legally privileged information or copyright material. You should not
read, copy, use or disclose them without authorisation.  If you are
not an intended recipient, please contact us at once by return email
and then delete both messages.  We do not accept liability in
connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption,
unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.  This notice should not
be removed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sruocco.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 107 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/pipermail/l4-hackers/attachments/20060125/7df89ac5/attachment-0001.vcf>