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

Peter Williams
2004-08-05T02:13:08Z

> 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.