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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:d847:: with SMTP id
 u68mr27459225qkf.322.1587578738063;
        Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:77d5:: with SMTP id w21mr242073otl.5.1587578737327;
 Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lyo8rjl9nt.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=149.32.224.35;
 posting-account=Qh2kiQoAAADpCLlhT_KTYoGO8dU3n4I6
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.32.224.35
References: <ly1rofhhyf.fsf@pushface.org>
 <3a224dbe-5af4-4f8a-84d5-03e8b56398fa@googlegroups.com>
 <lyo8rjl9nt.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bf0fbfa9-b1b7-4fca-bae5-06d451e1817f@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scheduling behaviour issue
From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:05:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:58465
Date: 2020-04-22T11:05:37-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 10:20:27 AM UTC-7, Simon Wright wrote:
> fabien.chouteau@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 1:34:53 PM UTC+2, Simon Wright wrote:
> >> but FreeRTOS adds the preempted task at the *tail* of its ready queue
> >> ([4], section Prioritized Pre-emptive Scheduling (without Time Slicing),
> >> on page 95 or thereabouts).
> >
> > I couldn't find the paragraph that says that.
> 
> It's the dicussion after Figure 29.
> 
> There are 2 "continuous" tasks (no interaction with the scheduler) of
> the same priority, say A & B (this is so unlike any real-time system
> I've encountered! You might have just one, doing some sort of
> housekeeping or monitoring).
> 
> Both A and B are ready. One of the tasks, A, runs until a
> higher-priority task C preempts it; when the higher-priority task
> finishes, *the other task* B runs!
> 
> > That seems very strange to not resume the task that was just
> > preempted.
> 
> I so agree. I think it's because the mechanism used is derived from
> FreeRTOS's round-robin scheduler.

If the preempted task was resumed again, then task B will have no chance to run. Is it a undesired situation.