Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Why HZ on i386 is 100 ? | Date | Sat, 27 Apr 2002 21:26:32 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> > 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/
| |