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

[William Lee Irwin III]

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.


-- wli
-
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/