 | | Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Well, actually not :) If users don't want proportional timeslicing the patch is completly useless, but if they do, it might be usefull. /Joel (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
I have found that using proportional timeslicing works great in many situations. It is more forgiving for new developers, since a "runaway" process will not block processes of lower priority. (runaway process used here to mean a process which never (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Joe I think proportional timeslicing would be a nice thing if the implementation would be efficient and straightforward. I don't consider my patch to be that. Would still be nice to see a snippet of your code. How do the other kernel developers feel (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Joel, I had planned on another post to provide a link to the code sample, but have run very short on time. I will try to get that up soon. I believe the sensor handling issue is a real issue. However, I have yet to see a simple solution that (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
I posted some code and a simple explaination of my implementation. Here is the link: (URL) me know if you need clarification or want more information/code (I have the .tar.gz to compile a LegOS kernel that is somewhere between 2.6 and 2.7 and my (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
(...) Thanks for the link, your solution of proportional timeslicing is more straightforward than mine which I like. The only downside would be that a high prioritized process would have it's wakeup conditions checked less frequently than a low (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
"Joel Uddén" wrote (...) not (...) Actually, each task gets equal "wakeup" checking. The only difference between a low priority task and a high priority task is that the high priority task gets a larger time-slice when it is awake. This is not an (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
(...) I'd built a maze solver. When the solver makes a step (for example forward) it uses the light sensor to search for a wall and the rotation sensor to measure the distance it has traveled. If a wall is hit, the solver steps back until it reaches (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Joseph, Not to add too much work load, if you have a chance could you give an overview of the proposals out there for the task scheduling and sensor modifications (if any). This could be simply a quick list of lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos threads which (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | RE: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Can someone please tell me how to unsubscribe from this group! Thanks, - Subir -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of Ed Manlove Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:49 PM To: (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
(...) Yea you're right. I wasn't thinking. /Joel (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
I have been thinking (and toying with some ideas) concerning tthe wakeup checking. It might be possible to do wakeup checking more often then between each timeslice. This would make msleep more accurate and provide better sensor handling. I know (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
|
Nice to see that someone is so involved in BrickOS like you are. Just don't go dissapear. /Joel (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
