I have to make an rtos for 8051.
1.what are the functions performed by bootloader during startup of the chip? if i can execute a program on my chip stored at any location in memory then what do i mean by making a separate OS for 8051?
please help me..
regards, M.Stephen Selvaraj
It actually stands for "Real-Time Operating System"
NO. you look at my code and you see it is not real-time.
I call mine rapid bcoz I know that an micro can never do things in real time. it is fast operating system is never realMine is faster than, NO NO NO NIO, NO, NIO NO
HOW I call My version is better than Real bcoz its faster than any other ive seen ;) when the procmpu is fast it as Figure 2: Basic Services Provided by a Real-Time Operating System Kernel ... If you ask the developer of a non-real-time operating system for the algebraic ...
Victoria Park Lake. Victoria Park, Bow E3, London. No night fishing. Open all year. A 4-acre landscaped lake in a busy but pleasant park. Carp up to 25lbs. ...
if you please list the distances to England and Scotland Driving Tours A land of long summer nights and northern lights. These two driving tours will take you through some of the most romantic spots in Scotland. ...
it is noty real time.
"I call mine rapid..."
OK, fair enough.
But "RTOS" is a widely-known abbreviation for "Real-Time Operating System". If you want to use that term with your own specific meaning in your own specific context, that's fine - but you need to make it clear that it's your definition, and not the commonly-held one.
Especially as the OP in this thread doesn't really seem to have a firm grasp on what "RTOS" means in any context - so throwing in non-standard definitions without warning is not helpful.
"Victoria Park Lake. Victoria Park, Bow E3, London. No night fishing. Open all year. A 4-acre landscaped lake in a busy but pleasant park. Carp up to 25lbs. ...
WTF !!!
Guess the info is useful to someone - But why here?
I know that an micro can never do things in real time
the amusing thing is that it can only do so if there is no "Real Time Operating System" employed.
Erik
Then again, "real time" doesn't say anything about how fast the system actually reacts to events - it only means that it has a guaranteed maximum response time.
A system with a guaranteed maximum response time of one second is still a real-time system (however, it may not be suited for tasks that require faster response times), while a Core 2 Duo running Windows Vista is not.
The expression "real time" as in RTOS basically means "determinable time". The phrase "real time" by Websters definition basically means "NOW".
For that reason, in computing, if you say 'real time' and do not specify which definition you refer to, it can mean anything.
If you have bits coming down a pipe at multiMegaHertz speed, "real time" an the RTOS meaning will leave you wanting.
I, personally, believe that the language should be interpreted according to Webster, and not according to what somebody wants it to mean.
The phrase "real time" by Websters definition basically means "NOW".
yes,,,thats why i call mine 'rapid time oparating system', it is quick but not instentanious. microprocessors are clocked and any action has to wait for next clock cicle. it cannot do stuff immideataly.
it cannot do stuff immideataly.
At the most basic level, no practical system can do anything immediately, since the speed at which information propagates is limited by c.
For any real system, however, having a delay that is a negligible fraction of the smallest time constant of the system does not violate the criterion for real-time.
No, it merely means that you didn't read the documentation of your RTOS/uC - you should have made sure that the guaranteed response time is actually less than minimum response time required by your application.
Or you can switch to the Core2Duo/Vista combination, which will do stuff "right now" most of the time, but be busy with doing Windows Vista-related things occasionally.
"the Core2Duo/Vista combination, which will do stuff "right now" most of the time, but be busy with doing Windows Vista-related things occasionally."
I think you typed that slightly wrong?
Didn't you mean:
"the Core2Duo/Vista combination, which will do Windows Vista-related things "right now" most of the time, but be busy with doing reall stuff occasionally"
;-)
"thats why i call mine 'rapid time oparating system', it is quick but not instentanious"
Which is no more help than calling it "Real Time", is it?
"Rapid" is no more nor less specific than "Real Time", and just adds unnecessarily to the confusion by bringing a different name to the same concept!
"Rapid" in some systems will mean seconds; in others, it will mean nanoseconds.
no,,, real implies the poserbilty of immediate. Rapid implies quick (eg. not immidiate.) i use a better describing name of what the sw does. Rapid is more descriptave for the use bcoz it implies reletive time.
anyways,,, it do to me ;)-
No, it merely means that you didn't read the documentation of your RTOS/uC - you should have made sure that the guaranteed response time is actually less than minimum response time required by your application. I did read and found none. that had a "guaranteed response time" better than "minimum response time required". There is a limit to what a '51 (even a f120) can do in 200nS. I guess that with a Pentium (where using an OS would be appropiate) running at a few GHz it could be done.
the very recipe for creating intermittent problems.
The Real Time part is that the OS is deterministic.
The threads that have hard requirements are guaranteed to be started fast enough to never miss an event.
In some situations, the requirement is in ns - which means we need dedicated hardware.
In some situations, it is in us, which mean we can use the highest prioritized interrupt, as long as we know that the longest time interrupts are disabled + the response time of the most prioritized interrupt handler is less than our requirement.
In some situations the requirement is in ms, so we can use threads with high priority and let the OS switch in the task based on the trigger event.
The Real Time part is that the system can always manage the requirement. Or - in some situations - it may be accepted that it sometimes fails, as long as the system always knows when it has failed and can guarantee that it can perform an alternative (such as a corrective action) within a guaranteed time.
In the end, an RTOS doesn't need to be fast. It just has to prommise a max response time. The advantage of a fast RTOS is that a slower (cheaper and/or less power-consuming) processor may be used for a specific timing requirement.
The little '51 do have an advantage that it can swap register sets. The mighty x86 may run at crazy clock frequencies but isn't optimized for quick interrupt handlers. Admittedly, some of it has been fixed by the virtualization of registers and micro instructions.
I did read and found none.
In that case, you can either roll your own RTOS (if you think you can do better than what's available on the market), pick one that lets you take care of some of the ISRs and run them without any OS overhead (usually possible as long as you don't call any of the RTOS system functions inside the ISR), skip the RTOS altogether, or pick a piece of hardware that takes some of the load off the CPU so it doesn't need to react every time it receives a handful of bits.
Of course, these options differ in development time and cost per unit.