From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Uneasy thoughts about priorities, priority inversion and protected objects
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:21:35 +0100
Date: 2015-02-27T14:21:35+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16txv54ohs4g3$.d3s1dsnk2g77.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 0925a2da-6cd2-4c06-bd20-1ffb3d14156b@googlegroups.com
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:59:02 -0800 (PST), Jean François Martinez wrote:
...
> Since I don't think for a second none of the smart people who designed Ada
> and none of the smart people who have read either the ARM, Burns'book or
> Rosen's wikibook haven't ever had a so obvious idea why is that we still
> are in the model I described on the first paragraph? Because it is
> simpler to implement? Because it is no big deal? (You are supposed to
> leave the protected object _fast_). Or is it because I missed someting?
I would say it is because there is no good reason to interrupt protected
actions regardless priorities. It simply does not pay off, and whatever
gain might result of doing this will be lost on context switching (at least
two in your scenario).
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-27 13:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-27 11:59 Uneasy thoughts about priorities, priority inversion and protected objects Jean François Martinez
2015-02-27 12:59 ` J-P. Rosen
2015-02-27 13:21 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Jean François Martinez
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox