 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
