Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:45:07 +0200
Adam Beneschan a écrit :
I'm just reading what the RM says. But, although I'm not an expert atHmmm... yes, as long as you are running on a mono-processor. But the rules must take care of multi-processors, too. In that case, there is some blocking, but it can be implemented by spin-locking, thus avoiding context switches (see my previous message).
this, I don't believe your argument makes sense given the way protected
objects are supposed to work. A task cannot, of course, access data
internal to a protected object directly; it has to call one of the PO's
subprograms or entries to get it. When it does so, then assuming
Ceiling_Locking is in effect, no other task can use the PO---but it's
not because other tasks are blocked, it's simply because the protected
action runs at a higher priority than any task that could use the PO
(and the protected action is supposed to complete very quickly). So no
mutual exclusion or blocking is necessary when calling protected
subprograms. At least I think that's how it works.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
J-P. Rosen (rosen@xxxxxxxxx)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr
.
- References:
- protected type interrupts
- From: REH
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Jean-Pierre Rosen
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: REH
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Adam Beneschan
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: REH
- Re: protected type interrupts
- From: Adam Beneschan
- protected type interrupts
- Prev by Date: Re: protected type interrupts
- Next by Date: Re: protected type interrupts
- Previous by thread: Re: protected type interrupts
- Next by thread: Re: protected type interrupts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|