From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 25 10:38:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79621106564A for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:38:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC9B8FC14 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:38:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (pD9E2DB7D.dip.t-dialin.net [217.226.219.125]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C5A2E147; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:37:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65FA13F7B0; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:37:51 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1235558271; bh=berJpmfoVfMnNSoRN1K9k6PA9LN1VgtRQ bd1dHI8KEk=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=NwtdLwFTWeXlGiIbSoqIkN3Oaa9/6mP1sBHVQ9IqmlC1+Vn8ydCI0Flb019wRgkR3 Y0L52Hz3M+PA4HPxnhA+sY5/H2RRkOLWnhy1oFv0ld6hW1GWVjdqNl/sMsur0L7OlS+ d6ElQccungYQnD7K6NJE7oR+/XW8lMIMoW7hCLr3cffK9RrYoXFTazPwynhueH6Un66 0cbzV4X37GUd7W092hh8lcYdUDa8UjA/F2B0bhp4UP8Cr0QyMtq6Ol1UG58tVTOa98r Ka4un7YIJ+E3AL69BubuS1MNmS+5mCNZPLbqp2fZB9gphK7MIWVxMVW5o/WpGoUZPko 1mTu+XjdA== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.3/8.13.8/Submit) id n1PAbpI1054119; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:37:51 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:37:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20090225113751.62205vkw7ui1ax6o@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:37:51 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Siddharth Prakash Singh References: <1aa142960902241100u671d5f90u769ad98e08fabb43@mail.gmail.com> <49A447C5.2020903@freebsd.org> <49A457CA.20704@dir.bg> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-ID: 96C5A2E147.E287C X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, ORDB-RBL, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-14.004, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 1.40, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10, SMILEY -0.50) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:14:27 +0000 Cc: Jordan Gordeev , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Google SoC 2009 Idea X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:38:04 -0000 Quoting Siddharth Prakash Singh (from Wed, 25 Feb =20 2009 07:13:05 +0530): > Yeah I sent the same proposal to all the *BSD mailing list, because I > am interested in doing this project . What's wrong in proposing the > same project in all the *BSD organizations? As one of the FreeBSD mentors for some GSoC's in the past: nothing is =20 wrong with proposing the same project to several *BSD projects, that's =20 not unusual and happened in the past several times. What's not so nice is to propose something without looking at the =20 existing features in this area. It's not just saying "I want to do =20 something like this". When you submit your proposal to Google, we =20 expect that you looked at the corresponding code and at least know =20 most of the features. You are not supposed to know each line of code =20 or to understand each line of code, but you should know what is there, =20 and what you need to do until your goal is achieved. For example in one of the past GSoC's proposals told that in the XYZ =20 subsystem A, B and C "is missing". They contained a timeframe which =20 explained how much time the student expects until each feature is =20 implemented. For some stuff (API compatibility) even a list of missing =20 functions was presented. You have to understand that in the past we got between 10 and 20 =20 students during the GSoC. For those 10-20 slots there where more than =20 100 proposals (more in the range of 200-300). Those proposals where =20 filtered by Google, so we've seen only those, which where not =20 immediately rejected by Google because of lack of content. Those =20 proposals have to be rated by the FreeBSD committers which are willing =20 to mentor students, and they do this based upon several checkpoints. =20 We look at the proposal and look if it is actually possible to do what =20 is proposed. Not only in general, also during the timeframe of the =20 GSoC and by a student. It is also not important that all features are =20 completed, so if we think that the student is able to e.g. handle 80% =20 of what he proposes and if we also think that this is ok for us, then =20 we give some points to the proposal. This means that the student has =20 to show that he understands what he is talking about and that he has =20 also some insight into what he has to do and some expectation how long =20 it takes. In the end the proposals with the most points (and someone willing to =20 mentor this project) are taken. So the better the proposal is, more =20 likely it will be that the proposal is accepted. When you look at the FreeBSD ideas page, you see the bare minimum what =20 information needs to be in the proposal (nobody needs to write the =20 required skills in a proposal). When we see a proposal which is just a =20 copy of what we have on the ideas page, it will not get that much =20 points, as it doesn't show if the students really understands what he =20 is proposing. Bye, Alexander. > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Jordan Gordeev wrote: >> Sam Leffler wrote: >>> >>> Siddharth Prakash Singh wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Ray Mihm wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Title: Multicore Aware Process Scheduler. >>>>>> I have not gone through the process scheduler code of Free BSD. >>>>>> Hence, I am not yet aware about the current support for Multicore >>>>>> Architectures. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Talk to jeff@freebsd.org, the author of ULE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What are your opinions on this project? What is the scope of this >>>> project? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux Kernel 2.6.* currently supports SMP, SMT, NUMA architectures. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Does the current scheduler has support for "CPU affinity/binding", >>>> mechanism for distinguishing varying capability of CPUs. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> These may be there already in ULE, although I'm not sure about NUMA. >>>>> >>>>> Ray >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Waiting for your response, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I note you sent this same note to the netbsd mailing lists. =C2=A0You mi= ght >>> want to do some more investigation before you propose a project. >>> >>> =C2=A0 Sam >>> >> It was also sent to the DragonFly mailing lists. :-) >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >> > > > > -- > Siddharth Prakash Singh > http://www.spsneo.com > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > --=20 There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to be burned for an opinion. =09=09-- Anatole France http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137