Pete, A confusion is never insulting. And I am a Mechanical Engineer, so my programming depth is not up to the level of most in this group. So the way I understand and describe can be confusing to this group I am sure. Sequential programming is just that. Every step has a place and no instruction is ever out of sequence. So there is no such thing as an interrupt in a purely sequential program and no problems with all the fun threading and interrupts. My confusion came from the idea that Ticker was simply using a method to trigger the task when the sequence location was reached. Not switch a context in the middle of anything else. So all those problems from threading and interrupts go away. So in my mind I thought Ticker was just allowing the task to be run when the time had passed and the location was reached. So in my mind, I could not see any issue with memory writes from other operations, because it would not exist in a sequential program. every action completes and moves to the next action. That was my confusion. Now I understand, it's not sequential so watch out for boogey mans.
Part of that logic was due to the looking at the wrong library. The other part of the problem is not having the depth of this crowd. As you clearly pointed out and I have made clear in other discussion, I am an empirical programmer through and through, but I certainly love to learn more all the time when I have time. Of which I spent more than I expected on this, but well worth it. Thanks, John Vaughters On Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 4:43:47 PM EST, Peter Soper via TriEmbed <[email protected]> wrote: John, Forgive me if I'm missing something about your questions and this is insulting your intelligence. But here's what's really happening. Your app code *except your callback function* is executing "above" the interrupt level. So it's statements 1, 2, 3, ... N are executing. As MIke said, *DURING* one of your statements executing the timer interrupt can happen. Your callback function is then called from the timer interrupt handler. It can see your program's variable, etc, and when the callback's statements are completed and the callback function returns control comes back out of the interrupt handler and the CPU picks back up executing your program's statements, starting with completion of any current one that's "in the middle" of completion for an arbitrary definition of "middle". This includes being in the middle of updating the two halves of a variable's value that can't be updated with a single memory write. So, for example, if your callback code was manipulating double precision floats along with your non-interrupt code, then it would be very possible to have one half of the float value glued into another half by messed up order of memory operations. But again, as Mike described, there are many other ways where there can be trouble if your non-interrupt code is making a library call and then your callback code tries to use the same library but there is no awareness that both threads of control are sharing some memory. I'm still not sure what you mean by "sequential" below, but hope this helps. -Pete On 1/27/21 4:28 PM, John Vaughters via TriEmbed wrote: > Rodney, > > Ok so does the os_timer_arm use interrupts? That is the part that confuses > me. If so than it is not sequential as I expected. But can be made > practically sequential with the bool flag concept. In my case the tasks are > definitely simple now. What kind of time frame would one expect to be > acceptable in an interrupt task? > > Thanks, > > John Vaughters > > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2021, 3:55:49 PM EST, Rodney Radford > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I just looked at the Ticker library routines and they are only a few lines > and basically a wrapper around os_timer_arm which is supposed to have 1 ms > accuracy, plus or minus 1ms. > > Arduino/Ticker.cpp at master · esp8266/Arduino (github.com) > > The os functions are documented here: > > 2c-esp8266_non_os_sdk_api_reference_en (espressif.com) > > Three is also an os_timer_arm_us that is supposed to be accurate to 500us (so > basically 0.5 ms) so it doesn't really get you much better resolution > > But it should be accurate enough for most operations as long as you keep your > interrupt handlers short/simple > > > _______________________________________________ > Triangle, NC Embedded Computing mailing list > > To post message: [email protected] > List info: http://mail.triembed.org/mailman/listinfo/triembed_triembed.org > TriEmbed web site: http://TriEmbed.org > To unsubscribe, click link and send a blank message: > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe > > _______________________________________________ Triangle, NC Embedded Computing mailing list To post message: [email protected] List info: http://mail.triembed.org/mailman/listinfo/triembed_triembed.org TriEmbed web site: http://TriEmbed.org To unsubscribe, click link and send a blank message: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Triangle, NC Embedded Computing mailing list To post message: [email protected] List info: http://mail.triembed.org/mailman/listinfo/triembed_triembed.org TriEmbed web site: http://TriEmbed.org To unsubscribe, click link and send a blank message: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
