From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17570.30602.344459.631443@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:35:22 +0200 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 6/6] Introduce IRQ latency benchmark In-Reply-To: <44A275DE.5080500@domain.hid> References: <20060626172116.019532000@domain.hid> <20060626172120.322015000@domain.hid> <17570.29185.754625.871443@domain.hid> <44A275DE.5080500@domain.hid> From: Gilles Chanteperdrix List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > Also note that calling printf from a signal handler risk deadlocking if > > the signal handler get called on the return path of the write call that > > take place in the middle of a printf call on the main thread. > > > > Ok, then we also need a fix for the latency test (this is where I > grabbed that pattern from). Is there a high risk that this locks up? I > wonder why I never observed or heard of problems with latency. The mutex used by the stdio lib depends on the file descriptor, so, it is possible to use a different file descriptor in the signal handler and on the interrupted context. -- Gilles Chanteperdrix.