TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Roger Racine <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Roger Racine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:46:26 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
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
buffering)
>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
617-258-2489

ATOM RSS1 RSS2