Well right now it only checks for processes in the same priority group, doesn't consider ones higher, mind they should run at some point. Also doesn't consider any lower, so they'll never run, which is different from will run *a bit*. Howwcwe I will accept that run *a bit* might be a worthless exercise? Still if the intent is to yield it seems that is a poor choice of words if it never yields to lower priority processes.
On 23-Jan-06, at 9:36 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:
On 23-Jan-06, at 8:19 PM, John M McIntosh wrote:
Er, if we're messing with this, and with rescheduling processes when you change priorities, do we want to consider how Processor>>yield behaves? Should it allow a lower priority process to run if there are no processes runable at the same priority?
If you mean 'no >other< processes' then it would be almost completely pointless since at the very next opportunity the higher priority process would preempt the low priority one. In the case of 'no processes' then obviously a lower priority process would get a turn anyway.
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- Cackles a lot, but I ain't seen no eggs yet.
-- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== ===