Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- From: "Zootal" <giganews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:13:34 -0700
Yes, but the app and cpu (and scheduler in your example) are still
required to work under the rules and constraints of the OS. The point
is, whatever functions an app embeds are by definition not part or no
longer part of the OS. It's one or the other, and for good reason.
Of course there are rules and constraints - but that doesn't change the
concept of having apps running exclusively on cores managing the core
themselves instead of the "OS". Whether you call it part of the OS or not, a
cpu scheduler is a cpu scheduler, and if my app running on this core with
exclusive access to the core can use it's own cpu scheduler instead that of
the main "OS", that is what it will do.
.
- References:
- Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- From: William
- Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- From: Zootal
- Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- From: nospam
- Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- From: Zootal
- Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- From: nospam
- Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: XP TaskManager - Physical memory vs PageFile?
- Next by Date: Re: Does P5A support 120 GB hard drive?
- Previous by thread: Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- Next by thread: Re: Intel comming out with a 16 core Nehalem family.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|