[coyotos-dev] Need for revised invocation
devbox at selnet.org
Mon Feb 6 13:13:23 EST 2006
On 06/02/2006, at 9.52, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 10:23 +0100, Valerio Bellizzomi wrote:
>> On 05/02/2006, at 17.21, Charles Landau wrote:
>> >None of the above requires preemption. Preemption is evil and should
>> >be avoided at almost any cost.
>> There shouldn't be any preemption at all if the system runs user jobs
>> a precomputed schedule.
>> The only one impediment that I see now, is that the **verification** of
>> precomputed schedule is NP-complete.
>> More on this later.
>First, precomputed schedules preempt all the time: every time your slice
>Second: I believe that by "verification" you mean that the schedule
>construction problem is NP-complete. This is the admission control
>problem. Given a proposed schedule, checking that it meets all
>constraints is *not* NP complete.
Shame on me for writing in haste before going to work.
What I said is purely based on the work layed out in my brother's thesis
(2003), which is exactly a research on scheduling problems. I will send a
detailed initial note in a short while (after dinner).
>coyotos-dev mailing list
>coyotos-dev at coyotos.org
More information about the coyotos-dev