Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:52:44 +0400 | Subject | Tickles scheduler | From | Dragoslav Zaric <> |
| |
Did anybody test and compare work of ticking and tickles scheduler ?
Currently I think it is implemented as ticking scheduler with hard-coded frequency (usually 100 Hz).
Personally I think that tickles scheduler is much better solution, but maybe I am over-view something and maybe there are side effects when implementation starts ? Instead of tick, we can wait for events to happen (for example IRQ, add or remove process from list), and when periodic actions are needed, we can time schedule them dynamically based on system load.
Can somebody give me some insight in this issue if he has any experience with this ?
Is it at all possible to implement kernel without ticking, spin system by events and periods ? Maybe ticking is still best solution to have fast responding system ?
Kind regards
-- Dragoslav Zaric
Professional Programmer MSc Astrophysics
| |