Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System
Jeff Hill wrote:
>
> I still worry that an exception might occur while intLock() is applied,
> but perhaps this risk is worth taking in order to allow unconstrained synchronized
> access to globally known variables.
It may be possible to find a solution which doesn't use an intLock, at
the expense of a tiny bit of performance. If the device support were to
read the value twice and compare the two, it could be fairly confident
that nothing else had changed the variable in the meantime (the chances
of both reads having been split and both giving the same wrong value are
likely to be pretty low, and it can only happen when the write rate is
somewhat higher than the time between reads). The problem arises with
what to do if the two copies are different - read again and compare with
the later of the first two, but if these are different *again* then how
long do we carry on trying? Perhaps raise an alarm if the second
comparison fails.
-- Andrew
___
.' `. Andrew Johnson, Head of Electronics
/ Royal ) Royal Greenwich Observatory
\ Greenwich Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0EZ
| Observatory Tel: +44 1223 374823 Fax: 374700
+---------- WWW: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~anj
- References:
- RE: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Jeff Hill
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Reminder on the FREE CapFast evaluation software Dr. Chong Lee
- Next:
Proposed subroutine record enhancement Peregrine M. McGehee
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
RE: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Jeff Hill
- Next:
Re: Proposal for boosted Symb device support Joseph P. Sullivan
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
<1998>
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024