On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 11:09:59PM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > Actually you are correct (here I get myself crucified) but hear me out. > I spent years of work on NT internal APIs (The the IBM OS2 APIs that > share the same design) and the design itself is *very* impressive.
Where is it documented? maybe we'll learn something. > Even with the 2.6 NPTL (The Native Posix Thread Library, already out > with the RedHat 9), the Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3 has better security and > scheduling (Though performance is impressive) Sorry, but NPTL has little to do with scheduling[1] and less with security. NPTL is a threading library[2], and the term is used affectionately to also refer to Ingo Molnar's kernel threading improvements and futexes support[3]. I've been reading about schedulers lately[4]. I wonder why do you consider the Windows shceduler better? [1] All kernels supporting NPTL also use the O(1) scheduler. Maybe that's what you had in mind? [2] http://people.redhat.com/drepper/nptl-design.pdf [3] See http://www.linux.org.uk/~ajh/ols2002_proceedings.pdf.gz, Rusty Russell's "Fuss, Futexes and Furwocks: Fast Userlevel Locking in Linux", page 479. [4] Uresh Vahalia's Unix Internals: The New Frontiers. Recommended. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
