On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 09:14 +0100, Neil Davies wrote:
Hi
With the discussion on threads and priority, and given that (in
Stats.c) there are lots of useful pieces of information that the run
time system is collecting, some of which is already visible (like the
total amount of memory
Duncan
That was my first thought - but what I'm looking for is some
confirmation from those who know better that treating the GC as
'statistical source' is a valid hypothesis. If the thing is 'random'
that's fine - if its timing is non-deterministic, that's not fine.
So GC experts are
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 15:05 +0100, Neil Davies wrote:
Duncan
That was my first thought - but what I'm looking for is some
confirmation from those who know better that treating the GC as
'statistical source' is a valid hypothesis. If the thing is 'random'
that's fine - if its timing is
Yes, you've got the problem domain. I don't have to deliver responses
to stimuli all the time within a bound, but I need to supply some
probability for that figure.
That problem domain is everywhere - all that varies is the bound on the time
and the probability of meeting it.
'Hard real time'
Hi
With the discussion on threads and priority, and given that (in
Stats.c) there are lots of useful pieces of information that the run
time system is collecting, some of which is already visible (like the
total amount of memory mutated) and it is easy to make other measures
available -
I think the problem becomes slightly easier if you can provide an upper
bound on the time GC will take. If I understand your problem domain, Neil,
you're most concerned with holding up other processes/partitions who are
expecting to have a certain amount of processing time per frame. If we can
