lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ?
Date
From
> > 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.060 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site