User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Letting sleeping processors lie

Letting sleeping processors lie

Posted Oct 23, 2003 23:27 UTC (Thu) by georgeanz (guest, #16234)
In reply to: Letting sleeping processors lie by brouhaha
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:

(Log in to post comments)

Letting sleeping processors lie

Posted Nov 13, 2003 9:29 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

Good explanation, thanks. I should have been less hasty to complain.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds