From: "Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Penalty of calling a protected operation or task-entry.
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:59:54 GMT
Date: 2003-09-26T02:59:54+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <KYNcb.582809$o%2.265262@sccrnsc02> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8cGcb.25659$os2.355577@news2.e.nsc.no
Make the read operations use protected functions, they can happen
concurrently (see: LRM 9.5.1). You will still have some penalty for
protected procedures since they are mutually exclusive.
Steve
(The Duck)
"Frank" <franjoe@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:8cGcb.25659$os2.355577@news2.e.nsc.no...
> Hi!
>
> GNAT 3.15p (WindowsXPProfessional / Linux'es)
> --------
> As I have understood there is a time-penalty when calling a protected
> operation or task-entry. Im thinking about adminstrative cost
> of the call, not loss of parallell'ism.
>
> My situation is the following:
> If I have a protected type that has two operation one "read" and one
> "write". These are called by different tasks.
> The "write" operation is called very seldom, but the "read" is called very
> often.
>
> Is there some approach to remove penalty from the "read" operation?
>
>
> --------
> Can someone point me to some literature or elaborate on this penalty?
>
> Frank
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-26 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-26 3:09 Penalty of calling a protected operation or task-entry Frank
2003-09-25 19:30 ` tmoran
2003-09-26 2:59 ` Steve [this message]
2003-09-26 18:00 ` Jeffrey Carter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-25 20:17 Beard, Frank Randolph CIV
2003-09-25 19:54 Beard, Frank Randolph CIV
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox