On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > > The testing I have done seems to indicate a lower overhead on a lightly
> > > loaded system, about the same overhead with some load, and much more
> > > overhead with a heavy load. To me this seems like the wrong thing to
> >
> > What about something that tries to get the best of both worlds? How about a
> > tickless system that has a max frequency for how often it will schedule? This
>
> How would you do this? Larger time slices? But _most_ context
> switches are not related to end of slice. Refuse to switch?
> This just idles the cpu.
Never set the next hit of the timer to (now + MIN_INTERVAL).
This way we'll get to run the current task until the timer
hits or until the current task voluntarily gives up the CPU.
We can check for already-expired timers in schedule().
regards,
Rik
-- Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release: "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:16 EST