On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:04 AM, William Hermans <[email protected]> wrote:
> For the purpose of this discussion with ags, I do not think the actual > definition of what an interrupt is, is quite so important, as much as how > to achieve an end goal. On a single threaded "system", I also do not think > asynchronous is really ever a factor. But I usually do tend to view > interrupts as prioritized, and preemptive. > Additionally, what I proposed, should not interfere with system interrupts much, if at all. But should complete the task as fast as the system would allow, and is blocking in nature. One thing I did not mention however, is that even though my idea is blocking in nature, you can give processor back to the system by using sleep(), or usleep(). Instead of continuously polling to the point that you're keeping the processor so busy, it has little time to do anything else. In my use case, I think I used usleep() with a value of 10,000, which seemed responsive enough for my purpose, and only used 1-3% processor time. -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beagleboard/CALHSORpA4SAcPsffAaYYnYBXdJ2ocXfJ_K9fW2STt_tk03j0rA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
