Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:03:45 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] V-3.0 Single Priority Array O(1) CPU Scheduler Evaluation |
| |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Hmm. Given do_promotions() I'd expect fenceposts, not iteration over >> the priority levels of the runqueue.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 10:33:36AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote: > I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean something like the more > complex promotion mechanism in the (earlier) EBS scheduler where tasks > only get promoted if they've been on a queue without being serviced > within a given time?
An array of size N can be rotated in O(1) time if an integer is kept along with it to represent an offset that has to be added to externally- visible indices mod N to recover the true index.
-- wli - 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/
| |