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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,67c50b972ca3b532 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ed Falis Subject: Re: Realtime Ada Conferences Date: 1996/03/27 Message-ID: <315998AC.67AA@thomsoft.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144495483 sender: news@thomsoft.com references: <4j9j9f$620@hacgate2.hac.com> content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------659516CD615B" organization: Thomson Software Products mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1996-03-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------659516CD615B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff T. Stevenson wrote: > > > Is anything being done to allow Ada compiler vendors to > produce compilers that have task context switch times > in the 20 us range? It seems that most compiler vendors > are not able to comply with the Ada83 tasking model > and provide realtime context switching capabilities. > Jeff, I think your info about context switching time is out of date. Here's some sample PIWG data for our ActivAda Realtime product, an Ada 83 compiler for 32 bit Intel x86 processors. The benchmarks were run with checks on and optimizations on. The target is a 75MHz 80486 DX4. But like another person said, it's mostly a matter of processor speed, and this is certainly not the fastest thing we or others have. The real issue is predictability. -- Ed Falis Thomson Software falis@thomsoft.com (617) 221-7341 ======================================================== Ideological disarmament: a koan for the 21st century ======================================================== --------------659516CD615B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tasks.txt" Test Name: T000001 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 19.59 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 0.979 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 51200 Test Description: Minimum rendezvous, entry call and return time 1 task 1 entry , task inside procedure no select Test Name: T000002 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 22.58 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 1.129 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 51200 Test Description: Task entry call and return time measured One task active, one entry in task, task in a packae no select statement Test Name: T000003 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 21.11 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 1.056 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 51200 Test Description: Task entry call and return time measured Two tasks active, one entry per task, tasks in a package no select statement Test Name: T000004 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 34.78 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 1.739 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 51200 Test Description: Task entry call and return time measured One tasks active, two entries, tasks in a package using select statement Test Name: T000005 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 23.30 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 1.165 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 64000 Test Description: Task entry call and return time measured Ten tasks active, one entry per task, tasks in a package no select statement Test Name: T000006 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 40.16 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 2.008 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 32000 Test Description: Task entry call an return time measurement One task with ten entries , task in a package one select statement, compare to T000005 Test Name: T000008 Class Name: Tasking CPU Time: 53.87 MICROSECONDS plus or minus 2.693 Wall/CPU: 1.00 ratio. Iteration Count: 25600 Test Description: Measure the average time o pass an integer from a producer task through a buffer task to a consumer task --------------659516CD615B--