| Author |
Message |
hashir.mail@gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
Hi
| Quote: | If all you have is a pirated copy of the source, then you have
some |
work on your hands.
:-), The source is genuine . I tired a LOT to a pirated one. But , it
didnt work..:-). I somehow managed to presuade my boss to get for me
threadx - 386arch. so i wont need to worry about the board as well.
The source that i have is for the 386 architecture. I dont know if its
the purchased version or just an evaluation version that the threadx
people give.
Is there any tool in LINUX or free software for running
/simulating/compiling Threadx ?
THANKs A LOT
hashir |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CBFalconer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
"hashir.mail@gmail.com" wrote:
| Quote: |
.... snip ...
Does anybody know anything about Threadx. Sorry for the delay..Was
out hunting for threadx. I got the source :-). But would love to
get to know it more before i end up with some stupid development
tool. Please help me. Do you know about any development tool with
an evaluation license so that i could get a program working...and
get to feel the threadx babe.
|
I know nothing about a package called Threadx. I do know something
about threads, processes, and concurrency. If that is your problem
I can recommend a book called "Principles of Concurrent
Programming", by Ben-Ari. All you have to do is find it. It will
give you all the fundamentals you need.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gene S. Berkowitz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
In article <41C6532A.877C66E9@yahoo.com>, cbfalconer@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: | "hashir.mail@gmail.com" wrote:
... snip ...
Does anybody know anything about Threadx. Sorry for the delay..Was
out hunting for threadx. I got the source :-). But would love to
get to know it more before i end up with some stupid development
tool. Please help me. Do you know about any development tool with
an evaluation license so that i could get a program working...and
get to feel the threadx babe.
I know nothing about a package called Threadx. I do know something
about threads, processes, and concurrency. If that is your problem
I can recommend a book called "Principles of Concurrent
Programming", by Ben-Ari. All you have to do is find it. It will
give you all the fundamentals you need.
|
ThreadX is a royalty-free, small footprint RTOS sold by Express Logic.
It was developed by William Lamie, who was also the original author of
the Nucleus RTOS, sold by Accelerated Technologies/Mentor Graphics. The
RTOS C source is provided. It is task-oriented, and usually used on
32-bit micros without an MMU. It is fully preemptive, and offers an
very fast context switch time.
--Gene |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elder Costa
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:42 pm Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
hashir.mail@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | Hello again.
I downloaded the codewarrior demo. And those nice people sent me a
evaluation license too. But it doesnt seem to have threadx in the
target OS choice menu. Maybe thats available only with the registred
version.
Metroworks codewarrior can be used to compile thread,says threadx.com.
http://threadx.com/debug-metrowerks.html
But AFAIK ;-),it doesnt seem to work with the demo.:-(
Any brilliant ideas ?
Check IAR. I've been told they integrate ThreadX to their IDE. |
HTH.
Elder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
42Bastian Schick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:04 pm Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
| Quote: | [ThreadX] is fully preemptive, and offers an
very fast context switch time.
|
Wow, nearly all RTOS's I know of, offer very fast context switch time.
The biggest part of it is determined by saving and restoring a context
(which is CPU register + some bytes).
So it is hardly something to differ RTOS's.
--
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@epost.de instead ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gene S. Berkowitz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:58 am Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
In article <41c6d9c5.26118246@news.individual.de>, bastian42@yahoo.com
says...
| Quote: | [ThreadX] is fully preemptive, and offers an
very fast context switch time.
Wow, nearly all RTOS's I know of, offer very fast context switch time.
The biggest part of it is determined by saving and restoring a context
(which is CPU register + some bytes).
So it is hardly something to differ RTOS's.
|
Well, no, it isn't quite that simple. There is a priority scheduler
involved.
It's necessary to find the highest priority task that is ready to run.
It's necessary to place the task being preempted into a queue.
It's necessary to be able to handle external interrupts under the
control of the OS.
The implementation and speed of this varies between RTOS's.
--Gene |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
42Bastian Schick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:58 am Post subject:
Re: threadx |
|
|
| Quote: | Well, no, it isn't quite that simple. There is a priority scheduler
involved.
|
I know there are some weird priority schedulers arround :-)
| Quote: | It's necessary to find the highest priority task that is ready to run.
|
Ok, lets put it this way: All RTOS with an O(1) scheduler offer fast
taskswitching. On most (if not all) 32Bit CPUs saving/restoring the
register-set takes more time than finding the next task to run.
E.g. ARM5TE with an RTOS with 32 priorities (Sciopta, OSE Epsilon):
Finding the next ready process takes 4 cycles.
But saving and restoring the tasks working registers takes at least 2
times 10 cycles (assuming to save only registers not previously saved
due to a system-call).
And I am pretty sure any RTOS (w/o MMU) is as fast as those two.
| Quote: | It's necessary to place the task being preempted into a queue.
This may vary but I'd say it's effect is hidden by other things, like |
RAM/Flash speed.
| Quote: | It's necessary to be able to handle external interrupts under the
control of the OS.
|
This will have no effect on the task-switching times.
| Quote: | The implementation and speed of this varies between RTOS's.
|
Yes, but I think that RTOS users should not look at the pure
task-switch time because of the reason above.
The real thing is more interresting: That is sending data from one
process/task to another.
--
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@epost.de instead ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in