Appeal No. 2002-0792
Application 08/801,646
with the Examiner that the suggestion to use shared memory
between the user-level scheduler and the kernel as a
communication venue is of interest. However, we fail to find
that Polychronopoulos has described any further details of such a
communication mechanism other than this one suggestion.
Therefore, we fail to find that Polychronopoulos teaches the
above limitations as recited in Appellants’ claims 1, 19 and 23.
Appellants also argue that Polychronopoulos and Anderson
fail to teach the use of shared arena as a communication
mechanism for conveying register context in the scheduling of
threads and the use of a number requested variable and a number
allocated variable, both of which are stored in the shared arena,
to allocate threads to the processor as recited in Appellants’
claim 13. See page 10 of the brief.
We note that Appellants’ claim 13 recite:
defining a shared arena within the memory, wherein the
shared arena includes a register save area for each of the
plurality of threads;
starting the program, wherein the step of starting the
program includes the step of setting, via the user level
scheduler, a number requested variable within the shared
arena requesting that one or more processors from the
plurality of processors be assigned to the program and
setting, via the kernel level scheduler, a number allocated
variable within the shared arena indicating how many
processors from the plurality of processors are assigned to
the program; and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007