On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 20:32 -0700, Richard Reynolds wrote: > >> That sure sounds a LOT like preemptive multitasking to me. > > > > The ISR should have preempted whatever else was happening, but it would > > not. > > I donno, the fact you wanted the ISR to be triggered right away and it > was not, does not sound like a valid argument that the OS is not doing > preemptive multitasking.
Hmmm, no other interrupts are active, no other higher priority tasks being executed, but yet the one interrupt that gets triggered does not get serviced. Sounds like something is not being preempted to me. > In that it worked sometimes but not others sounds like > you just didnt get the priority you wanted. The fact M$ could not help you > fix it also does not sound like a valid arguement either. It sounds like an > argument for a zillion other things, including against the use of windows. > > How many people here have looked at a PC with NT running using a logic analyzer for weeks on end? (I have). How many, while they did this, were working with a team of application and OS engineers during the process? (I was) How many, while doing both, were M$ development partners and had daily contact with M$ engineers (we did). Now tell me how NT is a true preemptive OS? I'm listening and would like to know if the data we found was wrong (I honestly would). Also tell me how a high priority interrupt like the vertical blanking interrupt can take so long to service in this preemptive OS that the vertical blanking interval (which is long in computer terms) is nearly complete by the time it's serviced? BTW, I've found (though I no longer have the resources I once had) that apparently W2K is no better at servicing interrupts than NT was. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
