On 2008-11-20, Dave Meador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darn, that would have been too easy.
Sometimes the easy solution works.
>> Does the tick size matter? It's set to 10ms right now, so I
>> guess I'll try changing it to 1ms to see what happens.
>
> Its worth a try, but be careful because reducing tick size can
> have the adverse side effect of increasing context switch
> overhead.
If the system is designed correctly, it should make much
different. The time-critical stuff would all be configured to
use the real-time/FIFO scheduler, so context switches wouldn't
be driven by the system tick. But, the FIFO scheduler doesn't
appear to work, so context-switch overhead will be impacted.
> Reducing the tick size too much could cause more work for the
> processor in task switching rather than doing actual process
> work and thus degrading your performance.
All tasks except the idle task should be blocked until they
have work to do and then should run until they block again.
But, it turns out to be moot. The kernel hangs when HZ is 1000
and resets immediately when HZ is 250 or 300. It could be that
the system tick timer isn't configurable and is hard-wired to
generate a 100Hz interrupt.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! ... I see TOILET
at SEATS ...
visi.com
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by [email protected]
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
