Queues (QUE) versus Mailboxes (MBX)

Dennis Nguyen

Hi,

My SW application is an intensive number crunching application. There are several tasks in the system and I would like to us either QUE or MBX. I looked at the QUE implemetation and looks like the receiver task has to poll to see if the queue is empty or not. Will the MBX_pend with the timeout more efficient then polling the QUE_empty? I think the MBX_pend is more efficient and faster but I would like to get more information about it.

Thanks,

Dennis

over 15 years ago

0 David Friedland over 15 years ago

TI__Mastermind 18320 points

Dennis,

What version of BIOS are you using? You should be able to see a pretty complete description of MBX in the BIOS documentation.

QUE is a lower level set of functionality than MBX. Using the tasking pend would be a much more efficient use of your processor than polling. It sounds like MBX would be an appropriate solution for you, but if for some reason you needed to use QUE, you can do that as well by using it in conjunction with SEM_pend/post. However, MBX provides a way for you to avoid the time and complexity of doing that yourself.

Dave

0 Dennis Nguyen over 15 years ago in reply to David Friedland

Expert 1690 points

Thank you, Dave. I will use MBX for my application.

Dennis

0 Kaveh Vaghefi over 12 years ago in reply to Dennis Nguyen

Expert 1704 points

Sorry to dig up this old thread, but I'm looking in the DSP/BIOS documentation and don't see anywhere where it explicitly defines the order that MBX_pend will read messages posted to the MBX. For QUE, it says it uses FIFO order, is this true of MBX as well? Where can I find documentation to support this?

0 ToddMullanix over 12 years ago in reply to Kaveh Vaghefi

TI__Guru* 96960 points

Hi Kaveh,

MBX is FIFO based. It looks like it is not explicitly stated in the documentation.

Todd

Processors

Processors forum

Queues (QUE) versus Mailboxes (MBX)