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

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

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@bigpond.net.au

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