Elias Pschernig wrote:
Not sure how high the cost would be, even in case it would work like I
think. I only know the linux scheduler has 10ms tickss, and uses every
2nd tick to do scheduling (or something like that, didn't pay enough
attention in lectures :P) - and there must be a reason they don't use
1ms ticks.
I believe there's a kernel option to change the frequency of the timer.
At least, I remember seeing one in an older (pre-2.4.28) version. 2.4.28
does, however, have a Low-latency scheduler option (which is off by
default).. I haven't been able to test it, though.
But on my old 400MHz machine, I remember changing the timer option from
100 to 1000, and my system became almost unuseable because it was so
unrepsonsive. I fear the same thing is happening with
timeBeginPeriod(1). Faster CPU's may not show as much speed defficiency
(and perhaps at some point, it'll become more efficient), but I don't
think current CPUs are ready for it, hence why the scheduler is still
10ms by default.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click