Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!natmlab.dap.csiro.au!ditsyda!evans
From: evans@ditsyda.oz (Bruce.Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Alarm handling in 1.5
Message-ID: <2630@ditsyda.oz>
Date: 31 May 90 02:14:09 GMT
References: <5544@hub.ucsb.edu>
Reply-To: evans@ditsyda.syd.dit.csiro.au (Bruce.Evans)
Organization: CSIRO DIT Sydney, Australia
Lines: 13

In article <5544@hub.ucsb.edu> mcm@peach.ucsb.edu (Marcelo C. Mourier) writes:
>	For speed's sake, wouldn't it be better if the alarms were kept in a 
>linked list?  This could be easily done by adding a new entry, p_nextalarm, to 
>the proc structure that would keep the link between the proc table entries of 
>the processes/tasks with pending alarms.  In this way, finding the process/task
>to be awekened would require constant time, instead of O(n).

Sure it would be faster. It is not clear how much it would help. The clock
task appears to be taking .0015% of the CPU on my system (386, no cron).

A delta list would be faster still, and truly O(1).
-- 
Bruce Evans		evans@ditsyda.syd.dit.csiro.au