> > I remain unconvinced. Firstly the timer changes do not have to
> > occur at schedule rate unless your implementaiton is incredibly naiive.
>
> OK, I'll bite, how do you stop a task at the end of its slice if you
> don't set up a timer event for that time?
At high scheduling rate you task switch more often than you hit the timer,
so you want to handle it in a lazy manner most of the time. Ie so long as
the timer goes off before the time slice expire why frob it
> > Secondly for the specfic schedule case done that way, it would be even more
> > naiive to use the standard timer api over a single compare to getthe
> > timer list versus schedule clock.
>
> I guess it is my day to be naive :) What are you suggesting here?
At the point you think about setting the timer register you do
next_clock = first_of(timers->head, next_timeslice);
if(before(next_clock, current_clock)
{
current_clock = next_clock;
set_timeout(next_clock);
}
-
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 Apr 30 2002 - 22:00:15 EST