From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.ecp.fr!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Uneasy thoughts about priorities, priority inversion and protected objects Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:21:35 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <16txv54ohs4g3$.d3s1dsnk2g77.dlg@40tude.net> References: <0925a2da-6cd2-4c06-bd20-1ffb3d14156b@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: OpkKbm9QwHUq0Y4SxjI2mw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:192364 Date: 2015-02-27T14:21:35+01:00 List-Id: 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