From: Mark H Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: next_period = start + n*period; versus next_period = next_period+period;
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:46:29 -0500
Date: 2004-10-27T08:46:29-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <WENfd.2$oW3.0@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <n5ig8j7aogc2$.ijonbzhl0ms8.dlg@40tude.net>
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Right. However there could be other issues to consider:
> [snip]
>
> 2. What happens when the task misses a deadline? Usually it should skip one
> "tick" and go to the next one.
>
Maybe yes, maybe no. I have built several system where if you run long
in one frame, you try to catch up the next one. For example, I may have
an 80 Hz task running. It is connected to a 1553 bus where at 1 Hz, I
get more messages than any other 80 Hz frame. If I overrun that one
frame (out of 80), I don't mind running the next frame a little late.
It all depends on the application being designed and the safety (or
accuracy) considerations of that design.
--Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-27 13:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-26 16:20 next_period = start + n*period; versus next_period = next_period+period; Paul Colin Gloster
2004-10-26 17:16 ` Florian Weimer
2004-10-27 7:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-10-27 13:46 ` Mark H Johnson [this message]
2004-10-27 14:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-10-28 13:37 ` Mark H Johnson
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox