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 at 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 at smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
======================================================================== 
===