 | | More on threads —Michael Obenland
|
| | | (...) Of course you are right. I think it is a bad programming style not to give your program the ability to terminate but to run in an endless loop. But what is the penalty for this bad style? I've done some investigations and here are the results: (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: More on threads —Mike McFarlane
|
| | | | (...) ability to terminate but to run in an endless loop. But This is not true of an embedded system though which will have to run 'forever'. (...) priority of NORMAL+4. So, the (...) any time slice at all. NO time slice or just a very small chunk (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: More on threads —Michael Obenland
|
| | | | (...) Digging through tm.c gave me the impression, that main will indeed get no time slice. So I wrote another test program: ---...--- #include <conio.h> #include <unistd.h> pid_t worker; int work_task(int argc, char *argv[]); int main() { int i; i (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: More on threads —Michael Ash
|
| | | | (...) I recall that legOS's priority model is pretty rigid. If a thread with a higher priority never yields, threads with lower priority will never get any time. When I write legOS programs, I generally just have everything run at PRIO_NORMAL. That (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
