On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 01:29:21AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > >>Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by > > >>the caller, too?
If the server can make guarantees about latency (which is useful anyway, to say the least), it should be able to tell how much schedule it needs. Then it may demand that much from the client, and the client really transfers it, that is, it isn't gone when the client is destroyed. The result is that the client can determine beforehand if the price is too high, and refuse to use the server if it thinks it is. What it needs is kernel support for such schedule donation. Also, it needs support for "reserving" schedule, because a process can execute code (via an other process) after it is destroyed. This will need a limit, and I'm not sure if that solves all problems. In particular, kill -9 does no longer guarantee that the client will not perform a single instruction anymore. Are there any other problems with this approach? Or is that one big enough...? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
