Re: [PATCH] V-3.0 Single Priority Array O(1) CPU Scheduler Evaluation

[Peter Williams]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
> > > Software constructs are less of a concern. This also presumes that
> > > taking timer interrupts when cpu-intensive workloads voluntarily
> > > yield often enough is necessary or desirable.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 11:06:51AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>
> > Voluntary yielding can't be relied upon.  Writing a program that never 
> > gives up the CPU voluntarily is trivial.  Some have been known to do it 
> > without even trying :-)
>
>
> No reliance is implied. In such a scenario, the timers for timeslice
> expiry are always cancelled because userspace voluntarily yields first,
> so no timer interrupts are delivered. Should userspace fail to do so,
> timer interrupts programmed for timeslice expiry would not be cancelled.

OK.  My misunderstanding.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/