From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jesper Skov <jskov@redhat.com>
To: "Pamulapati, Indrasena (CTS)" <pindrase@chn.cognizant.com>
Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [ECOS] Suitability of eCos
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:44:00 -0000
Message-id: <otbst76ali.fsf@thinktwice.zoftcorp.dk>
References: <8F1D166D08ACD41196EE00B0D020944B82934E@CTSINENTSXUB>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00253.html

>>>>> "Pamulapati," == Pamulapati, Indrasena (CTS) <pindrase@chn.cognizant.com> writes:

Pamulapati,> the overhead involved in processing the tick.  But my
Pamulapati,> application requires tick duration as low as a
Pamulapati,> 100microseconds. I need to address such low time
Pamulapati,> resolutions.

As Ramana pointed out, the tick duration controls little more than
the kernel scheduler in eCos. Surely you don't need thread scheduling
at that rate!?!

Drivers doing IO should be driven separately, relying on device
interrupts, not scheduler interrupts, for state transitions.

But without further information about your application my comments
above are just guesses and may not actually apply...

Jesper