Re: No 100 HZ timer !

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > george anzinger wrote:
> >
> > > The testing I have done seems to indicate a lower overhead on a lightly
> > > loaded system, about the same overhead with some load, and much more
> > > overhead with a heavy load.  To me this seems like the wrong thing to
> >
> > What about something that tries to get the best of both worlds?  How about a
> > tickless system that has a max frequency for how often it will schedule?  This
>
> How would you do this?  Larger time slices?  But _most_ context
> switches are not related to end of slice.  Refuse to switch?
> This just idles the cpu.

Never set the next hit of the timer to (now + MIN_INTERVAL).

This way we'll get to run the current task until the timer
hits or until the current task voluntarily gives up the CPU.

We can check for already-expired timers in schedule().

regards,

Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
   "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"

		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com/