Tim Rowledge wrote:
> 
> The canonical example of this is simply a high priority loop waiting on
> a Delay. Each time the Delay fires it will stir up the process list at
> the priority of the suspended process (and by extension any other
> priority level that might get involved) assuming of course that the
> suspend is implemented to add the suspended process at the back of the
> list. Not all systems actually do that - VW used to put it at the front
> of thelist and so the same process would get resumed. Might still be
> like that for all I know.

So, the switcher will have to perhaps change the priorities of the
workers to give them each a proportional time slice.
 
> I think there is all the VM support you need already there, what with
> the Delay etc. Note that checkForInterrupts is already involved since it
> is the mechanism by which the Delay termination is noticed!

I saw that, I think.  There is an interrupt timer setup in the VM.

> I imagine that it might be useful to add some VM support to directly
> deal with a special timer for process stirring and thereby reduce by a
> small amount the allocating and setting up of actual Delay objects, but
> it would be a pretty minimal improvement I suspect.

I going to try tomorrow.

Rob

(G'night)

> tim
> 
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Never write software that anthropomorphizes the machine.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Smalltalking by choice.  Isn't it nice to have one!