Wine device drivers proposal
andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de
Mon Apr 4 02:55:34 CDT 2005
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 08:20:48PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Troy Rollo wrote:
> >run into problems with timing issues. Interrupts pose a particular
> >in that ideally the process handling the device should be activated
> >immediately, and the Linux kernel currently provides no interface to say
> >"switch to this task now" - the scheduler code simply does not provide
> >for it
> >(which is a shame, because a directed yield call with an associated call
> >return the remainder of the donated time slice(*) to the donor would be a
> >"simple" way of radically improving the performance of anything that uses
> Um, I'm fairly certain that rendezvous via any kernel synchronization
> mechanism (semaphores, condition variables, etc) will do exactly what you
> want. The blocked task goes to sleep and the rest of the time slice is
> preferentially transfered to the newly-active task. Such a mechanism is
> much more general than your proposed special interface, and accomplishes
> the same end.
Ah, right, THAT one was the main reason a direct yield is not implemented.
The usual blocking architecture achieves the same thing.
More information about the wine-devel