Subject:
|
Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jun 2002 06:28:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5505 times
|
| |
|
|
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 about proportional timeslicing? Is
it really necessary?
Once again I wonder about the progress of the sensor handling rewriting. I
think this would be the most important change for the new version of LegOS.
/Joel
> 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 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
