From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Synchronization: delays x hardware timers
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:03:39 +0200
Date: 2013-04-26T18:03:39+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1u15t64815v2d.m6dfzpj4eo8b.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dd7bbc1b-75ac-480a-af74-a7db7c007d98@googlegroups.com
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Rego, P. wrote:
> The question is which is the best way to implement the <Process_Wait>.
Calling an entry of a protected object (waitable event object) or else
doing it synchronously from a callback.
> I think that if I use a simple delay it's very enough; and since I do not
> have a hard real-time deadline, I even do not need to use delay until. A
> coleague argued with me saying that I must use hardware timers any case.
> Personally I think it's an unnecessary use of hardware resources.
Which is not different from delay. When a task does delay it is put to
sleep to be awaken by the scheduler. The scheduler is triggered by a timer
interrupt.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-26 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-26 15:27 Synchronization: delays x hardware timers Rego, P.
2013-04-26 16:03 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2013-04-26 17:22 ` Jeffrey Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox