On 2007-04-10 at 03:15:55 [+0200], André Braga <meianoite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/9/07, Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > please repost on the kernel mailing list. I believe you miss some kernel > > developers (e.g. Travis?) when posting here. > > I did! > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=2ad73a0704081600k6eeb8a5bh6a3231f67e588725%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=open-beos-kernel-devel > > Perhaps some spam filter thought my mail was junk? =P Ah, no, sorry. I just seemed to have missed it there. > P.s.: no remarks, no comments, no suggestions whatsoever? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the scheduling area. I last heard something about it as a student 7 or 8 years ago, and more intriguing algorithms weren't covered either. Generally, we're focussing on desktop use, not server (max throughput), nor real time applications. So, I believe, we want a scheduler with low latencies and acceptable throughput. Performance and complexity should be reasonably balanced. IMHO, a GA approach is over the top, as is your specialized memory allocator idea. Regarding memory usage, I think it's not that much of an issue. While it's generally prudent to have an eye on kernel memory usage, a few bytes more in struct thread won't be a problem -- even with thousand threads (a rather unusual case I'd say) it's only some KB after all. So, freely add what you need and don't do nasty tricks just to save a few bytes. CU, Ingo