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>