On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 07:32:05PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 10/08/23(Thu) 12:18, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:05:27PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Can we get rid of `hardclock_period' and use a variable set to 100ms?
> > > This should be tested on
On 10/08/23(Thu) 12:18, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:05:27PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> [...]
> > Can we get rid of `hardclock_period' and use a variable set to 100ms?
> > This should be tested on alpha which has a hz of 1024 but I'd argue this
> > is an improvement.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:05:27PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 05/08/23(Sat) 17:17, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > This is the next piece of the clock interrupt reorganization patch
> > series.
>
> The round robin logic is here to make sure process doesn't hog a CPU.
> The period to tell a proces
On 05/08/23(Sat) 17:17, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> This is the next piece of the clock interrupt reorganization patch
> series.
The round robin logic is here to make sure process doesn't hog a CPU.
The period to tell a process it should yield doesn't have to be tied
to the hardclock period. We want t
This is the next piece of the clock interrupt reorganization patch
series.
This patch removes the roundrobin() call from hardclock() and makes
roundrobin() an independent clock interrupt.
- Revise roundrobin() to make it a valid clock interrupt callback.
It remains periodic. It still runs at o
