To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legosOpen lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / RCX / legOS / 2700
2699  |  2701
Subject: 
Re: Re: Scheduler patch
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
Date: 
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:30:56 GMT
Viewed: 
2456 times
  
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes:
I posted some code and a simple explaination of my implementation.  Here is
the link:

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 prioritized process, which make no sense, but if the
wakeup/sensor handling will be moved from the scheduler the problem will not
occur.

Let 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 changes added in).  I want to avoid confusing the development effort
by releasing the whole thing publicly... but it is available for further
examination if necessary.

I didn't look into the multiple wakeup part but the other seems to be
understandable.


I agree, however, I am not sure we need something as fancy as the DAT4
implementation.  I think in nearly all cases, 99.99% sensor accuracy is
acceptable.  I bet we can achieve that with a smaller/simpler mechanism.  In
the cases where 100% accuracy is needed, then the DAT4 implemenation may be
the way to go.  Other opinions?

Well, from my experiences the sensor accuracy is MUCH better with the dat4
implementation. It would be nice with a smaller/simpler solution though.

Can you give me an example of when a user needs to have several processes
running to solve a task. I'm probably stupid not finding any :P

/Joel



Message has 2 Replies:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR