[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Tickles scheduler
    1.Currently processes in the system are in some kind of list I think
    (double circular).
    So what if we assign each process structure (task_struct) property for
    priority (maybe already there)
    and another property which is time how long should run. So instead
    having ticker in system,
    each process runs itself predetermined period of time based on
    priority and probably few more
    parameters that should be in algorithm.

    2. Second, when adding process into list, we can have separate side
    lists, created in advance (something
    like slab), where each lists hold tasks of same priority. So when we
    add new process to list, at same
    time we add it to his priority list. Than scheduler goes trough these
    lists, based on priority and each
    tasks hold it's running time. So we have two points to ease algorithm,
    lists with single priority and time inside
    each process task_struct related to priority.

    3. In this way time-granularity of the system is high and allows for
    real-time behavior, because we do
    not have outside time that we "cut" in the middle when interrupt
    happens, we just interrupt current process and when
    finished, scheduler continue to walk trough lists of processes that
    run its own time.


    On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Christoph Lameter <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
    >> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Dragoslav Zaric wrote:
    >> > [...]
    >> >
    >> > Is it at all possible to implement kernel without ticking, spin system
    >> > by events and periods ?
    >> You can compile with CONFIG_NO_HZ=n if you want a ticking kernel.
    > The kernel always ticks when a process is running CONFIG_NO_HZ does
    > nothing for that.
    >> > Maybe ticking is still best solution to have fast responding system ?
    > I think we need a tickless kernel.... Yes....
    >> My guesses are that it has already been benchmarked for speed, but you can
    >> still test it yourself.
    >> At least power usage/battery times is much better with a tickless kernel.
    > Well yes CONFIG_NO_HZ really should say CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE. You have
    > no ticks when a cpu is idle. Otherwise we are ticking...

    Dragoslav Zaric

    Professional Programmer
    MSc Astrophysics

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-28 12:23    [W:0.037 / U:1.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site