Ruth said :
the real thing that should have a priority attached to it was the communication itself: a message.
Like !
From: Mailing List Robot [mailto:sympa@xxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ruth Ivimey-Cook
Sent: 04 October 2012 17:51
To: occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Programming prioritisation
Eric Verhulst (OLS) wrote:
In OpenComRTOS the equivalent of PRI PAR and PRI ALT come together. In my view, they can't be decoupled.
1. Tasks get a priority (at compile time). System wide attribute, so independently on which node they have been mapped. On each node, scheduling is in order
of priority and preemptive.
This made me think: a long time ago, far far away... .no well anyway a long time ago someone suggested that the real thing that should have a priority attached to it was the communication itself: a message. Not the channel, or the task. The issue in ming, IIRC,
was priority inversion. It has always struck me that this was a good model to go with, though I don't recall ever seeing it done or even investigated.
Regards
Ruth
--
Software Manager & Engineer
Tel: 01223 414180
Blog: http://www.ivimey.org/blog
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/ruthivimeycook/