Subject:
|
Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:27:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1613 times
|
| |
|
|
"Stephen M Moraco" <stephen_moraco@agilent.com> wrote in message
news:GtKIM4.Gws@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes:
<snip>
> Since you have the config and simple swap we'll need to prove that
> both versions are still working and I'd like a 2nd opinion (review)
> to ensure that we still have what our tasker was intended to be,
> but after that, there should be no harm in versioning the
> changes in CVS. Sound OK?
Sounds good. Now, who would like to provide a second opinion?
BTW, as far as intended purpose of the task scheduler... I can see how the
current system 'could' be used in ways that the proposed could not. Ex: The
current system 'could' service one high priority task after another until
all high priority tasks go to a WAITING state... then move down the priority
chain.. This would give tasks of equal priority, equal servicing. (the
proposed system would not be able to accomodate this as easily) However,
the current system doesn't do that. It services the first high priority
process over and over until it enters a wait state; then moves on.
This could be moot depending on the changes proposed by the dat4 group.
<snip>
> I like your offer to work on firmdl and the RCX id stuff. However,
> can I divert you for a brief 2nd opinion I need? I've read the
> 7 page writeup of the priority patch the university students did.
Certainly. I was trying to bring up their document yesterday, but had some
trouble getting the ps viewer for windows, etc... then ran out of time. I
will take a look at it.
<snip>
> Regards,
> Stephen
> --
One last thing; I have begun looking at adding a wait_multiple to
compliment the wait_event handler. This would allow wait_event(s) to
timeout, or allow for more flexibility in complicated multitasking programs.
I will try to keep focus on the TODOs for this release though 8-)
Joe
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
| In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Ok, so I was wrong about this. I double checked the standard task scheduler, and sure enough, it cycles through the high priority tasks, until all are P_WAITING, then moves (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RFC: smaller task scheduler
|
| In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Joseph Woolley writes: <snip> (...) This is exciting... <snip> (...) Good work on this! Since you have the config and simple swap we'll need to prove that both versions are still working and I'd like a 2nd opinion (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
