Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:55:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Wong <wong@rogerswave.ca> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: terry@lambert.org, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, roell@xinside.com Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960410201244.3729B-100000@wong.rogerswave.ca> In-Reply-To: <199604100126.SAA06479@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> AST's are easy. It's the stacks they need to run while your program
> is already using your only stack that are annoying.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
why? you can allocate space for each and every process ( thread ) that
want to handle AST. in fact it can be on another CPU.
>
> Queued event delivery shouldn't have any impact on how RT
the system AST are delived to those process that registered to handle a
given interrept. in a user space.
> is or isn't (maybe I just can't see what you mean...). Message
> passing does not a R.T. system make, in my book...
>
well, I was just a bite vague on this, I meant besides the regular
textbook schedule on R.T. pre-emptive,fixed priority etc..., this even I
can do even when I am awake.
but for for applications, you want to have a process run on a specific
CPU alone wait for A/D conversion complate, so that the process can
strobe the data in in a _determinestic_ manner. I am not good in
drawing, otherwise, I can show you the exact timing in this.
anyway, in my book, exact timing is R.T.
Ken
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960410201244.3729B-100000>