 |
forums.ps2dev.org
Homebrew PS2, PSP & PS3 Development Discussions
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
whatisdot
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 43
Location: Purdue University, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: Non-preemptive Multitasking and Signals |
 |
|
Hello, again.
I am having some trouble understanding the semantics of signals with the EE processor. As I understand it, "ee_thread_t" (EE kernel threads) are non-preemptive, which means we need to yield control to other threads actively. (Is this a hardware limitation, or is this part of the current kernel design...?)
What I am having trouble understanding is how we can make signals work to our advantage in this case... If I have seen a number of interrupt handlers in the SDK so far, but I haven't been able to understand exactly how these work in a non-preemptive environment. For example:
The following example is obviously naive and doesn't work. I try to set the "SetAlarm" function within the context of the default thread. Am I correct in assuming that the alarm is set correctly, but the thread continues to execute and returns from the main function? If this is the case, even putting something like an endless loop in the main thread should cause enough time to pass where the function would be called, but this isn't the case either... What will cause the SetAlarm function to execute (if it can be executed at all in this context).
| Code: |
void *alarming(s32 alarm_id, u16 time, void *arg2) {
char *myStr = "This is quite alarming!\n";
printf( myStr );
scr_printf( myStr );
return arg2;
}
int main( int argc, char **argv) {
init_scr();
// Call the "alarming" function every 50ms
SetAlarm( 50, alarming, NULL);
return 0;
}
|
_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cheriff
Regular
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 262
Location: Sydney.au
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
Its not a HW limitation, Linux does preemptive multithreading just fine. I guess it was decided that the majority of uses (ie games) will take over the entire system so not need the overhead of being preempted every 5ms. If guys want this then can (and at least 1 game does) setup their own timer interrupt and rotate the thread queu when that comes in.
I'm not too sure on the specifics of SetAlarm, but
* are you sure it's recurring and not a one-off? If you need repeating, it might be best/easier to register a handler for the timer tick and program the clock's behaviour as you wish.
* scr_printf might be safe, but from experience, it's best not to have these handler threads do too much work, as they usually are running in the IRQ context. Try just having the alarm func incrementing a global (volatile?) variable, that the main thread is polling on and see if/when the count gets bumped.
_________________
Damn, I need a decent signature! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbit
Site Admin
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 293
Location: København, Danmark
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IIRC most IOP related things aren't safe to call from an interupt context... so printf is probably not a good idea either... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EEUG
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 136
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...as I wrote in my last post regarding threads alarm handler is executed only once, so | Quote: | | Call the "alarming" function every 50ms |
clause is not entirely correct. More correct way would be: | Code: | void *alarming(s32 alarm_id, u16 time, void *arg2) {
char *myStr = "This is quite alarming!\n";
printf( myStr );
scr_printf( myStr );
iSetAlarm ( alarming, 50, NULL );
return arg2;
}
|
Moreover using 'printf' inside alarm handler will crash the system. Note that time period is expressed in H-Syncs, not milliseconds... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatisdot
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 43
Location: Purdue University, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so an ugly but correct usage example would be this?
Also, why HSYNCs? Why not use the timer?
Sorry if I have forgotten something mentioned in a previous thread. It's a lot to take in all at once.
| Code: |
void alarming(s32 alarm_id, u16 time, void *arg2) {
//...rotate threads, or some other non Input/Output related task...
iSetAlarm( 10, alarming, NULL);
}
int main( int argc, char **argv) {
init_scr();
// Call the "alarming" function every 10 H-Syncs
SetAlarm( 10, alarming, NULL);
// Keep the main thread from terminating
while( true ) ;;;;
return 0;
}
|
_________________
--------------------------------------------------------------
"A witty saying proves nothing."
-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EEUG
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 136
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why not use the timer |
That's the way it (alarm stuff ) is implemented in the kernel. I think that the value of 10 is a bit low. You can set it to 625 (for PAL video mode it will be ~40ms) or to 525 (for NTSC it will be ~33ms)
| Quote: | | Okay, so an ugly but correct usage example would be this? |
...yes. I would also advice you to read my last post of that another thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
