TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:46:26 -0400
MIME-version: 1.0
Reply-To: Roger Racine <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Roger Racine <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (31 lines)
At 08:30 AM 8/12/1999 , Robert L. Spooner wrote:
>Roger Racine wrote:
>>  Is there any good reason to
>> create a separate task that must be run after some other task?  That seems
>> like a waste of effort (just put the processing of the second task after
>> the processing in the first task, and get rid of the second task).  It is
>> also somewhat a waste of CPU time, since there is no need for a change of
>> context if there is no possibility of concurrency.
>An example of when this would need to be done is when you have an interrupt
>service routine that does some preliminary processing of data (such as
>and then hands the data off to a lower-priority task for further
processing.  You
>may not be able to do all the processing in the ISR because it may have to
run too
>often.  The lower-priority task can then take the time it needs to
complete the
>processing without inhibiting servicing of the interrupts.

Sorry, I should have been more specific in my question.  Is there any good
reason to create a separate task, at the same priority as the first, that
must be run after some other task?
Roger Racine
Draper Laboratory, MS 31
555 Technology Sq.
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA