Letting sleeping processors lie
Posted Oct 23, 2003 23:27 UTC (Thu) by georgeanz
In reply to: Letting sleeping processors lie
Parent article: Letting sleeping processors lie
The "tick less" system was put together with instrumentation and proved to be overload prone. The problem is that entry and removal of one (or more) timers is required each context switch to keep track of the time slice and process time limits. This overhead increases as the load (i.e number of context switches per second) increases and was shown to cross over the flat overhead of a normal ticking system as a relatively low load.
Thus, since we really want less overhead with increasing load, and never more, I rejected the "tick less" system.
The VST code, on the other hand, fades away when the system is busy and only takes from idle time to do its thing.
I still have the "tick less" system patch on source forge for those who what to look at this in more detail. See: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
to post comments)