Hi Dennis,
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 09:11:39 Dennis Nicklaus wrote:
> Can someone please explain a few more details about epics processing
> sequences of FLNK-ed records. Once an flnk-ed sequence begins, can/will
> another different flnked sequence begin?
Yes it can, for a few reasons. If a second chain is in a different lock-set
and being executed by a different scan thread then it can be kicked off
whenever it's ready and that thread gets CPU time (which may depend on
relative thread priorities). Even if the second chain is in the same lock-set
and uses the same thread it can start processing if one of the records in the
first chain starts asynchronous record processing (the sequence record
processes its links this way, as does calcout if you set ODLY).
> Do I have to assume that unrelated (no shared PVs) flnk-ed series
> can/will run in parallel?
Yes, but (reading on) asynchronous device support usually queues up I/O
requests to the same port, forcing the I/O from later chains to wait. It can
depend on that device support and the relative thread priorities what order it
will actually execute multiple waiting operations.
> In our case, I have a series of records that implements several reads of
> a slow serial stream device, and associated other processing. I would
> like to protect against a user setting a PV that will cause a write to
> that same device before my series of reads is finished. Do I need to
> implement some protection? I do know about the statement in the
> StreamDevice manual that says, "The first out command in the protocol
> locks the device for exclusive access. That means that no other record
> can communicate with that device." But I think I'm looking for a
> different locking across a sequence of records.
Your question is really about whether streamDevice provides ways to control
port locking, which someone else will have to respond since I've never used it
myself. However I think it's going to depend on whether your series of reads
are all coming from the same message from the device or not; if each read is a
separate write-read operation then I suspect you're going to have to implement
your own protection mechanism in the database, but if all your reads are
pulling data out of the same device response then I think you'll be safe.
- Andrew
--
The best FOSS code is written to be read by other humans -- Harald Welte
- References:
- do flnk-ed sequences of records get interrupted? Dennis Nicklaus
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
do flnk-ed sequences of records get interrupted? Dennis Nicklaus
- Next:
Re: do flnk-ed sequences of records get interrupted? Tim Mooney
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
do flnk-ed sequences of records get interrupted? Dennis Nicklaus
- Next:
Re: do flnk-ed sequences of records get interrupted? Tim Mooney
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|