Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:52:31 -0500 (EST) | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [o(1) sched J0] higher priority smaller timeslices, in fact |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
> I still suggest a different set as faster and more readable at least to > me. Just two operations instead of 4! > > #define NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(n) (((n)+21)*(HZ/10)) // should be positive! > #define MAX_TIMESLICE NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(19) > #define MIN_TIMESLICE NICE_TO_TIMESLICE(-20)
Looks more readable. I wouldn't bet on faster, but definitely more readable.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |