Subject:
|
Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:43:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4764 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes:
<snip>
> BTW, as far as intended purpose of the task scheduler... I can see how the
> current system 'could' be used in ways that the proposed could not. Ex: The
> current system 'could' service one high priority task after another until
> all high priority tasks go to a WAITING state... then move down the priority
> chain.. This would give tasks of equal priority, equal servicing. (the
> proposed system would not be able to accomodate this as easily) However,
> the current system doesn't do that. It services the first high priority
> process over and over until it enters a wait state; then moves on.
<snip>
Ok, so I was wrong about this. I double checked the standard task
scheduler, and sure enough, it cycles through the high priority tasks, until
all are P_WAITING, then moves down the priority chain. I appologize for the
confusion.
Again, this is probably a moot point, based on the work from the Dat4 project.
*** NOTE: In addition, I think the task scheduler (no matter what form)
could modify the time-slice based on the current process priority. This
would definitely provide better performance for high-priority tasks... as
well as giving small time-slices to the low priority tasks (maybe even) more
often than the current tm ***
- Joe (knee deep in the kernel) 8-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
| "Stephen M Moraco" <stephen_moraco@agilent.com> wrote in message news:GtKIM4.Gws@lugnet.com... (...) <snip> (...) Sounds good. Now, who would like to provide a second opinion? BTW, as far as intended purpose of the task scheduler... I can see how (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
