Subject:
|
Re: Re: Scheduler patch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:24:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2526 times
|
| |
|
|
> > "Joel Uddén" wrote
> > The only downside would be ...
> In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes:
> Actually, each task gets equal "wakeup" checking ...
Yea you're right. I wasn't thinking.
/Joel
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
