| |
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 sleeps... never
enters a wait state)
All tasks run according to their priority... with one exception. The idle
task only runs if all processes are sleeping. In my implementation, when
the process pointer hits the idle process, it resets to the top of the list.
Then if the idle task is hit again with no other processes ready to run, it
executes the idle task. Sorry, I am rambling...
As for runaway processes, of course it is always more efficient to sleep a
process when it is waiting for something; but using proportional timeslicing
is more forgiving if you forget.
// Joe
"Joel Uddén" <afroo@ul.shacknet.nu> wrote in message
news:GxpBxo.5Fs@lugnet.com...
> Well, actually not :)
>
> If users don't want proportional timeslicing the patch is completly • useless,
> but if they do, it might be usefull.
>
> /Joel
>
> >
> > Do you have some examples where your patch could be useful?
> >
> > Eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
