From: Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>
To: Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>, xenomai-core <xenomai@xenomai.org>
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] rt_task_set_priority vs. Linux priority
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:12:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48E4F2E9.2020909@domain.hid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48E4EE52.2000202@domain.hid>
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Quick question $customer stumbled over: Shouldn't the user space part of
>> rt_task_set_priority also (or rather?) adjust the Linux priority of the
>> caller? My impression is yes. Actually, translating the native priority
>> to sched_setscheduler parameters and calling that service would be
>> better, no?
>
The nucleus does this for us, but that is not enough due to the glibc caching
priority levels.
> I believe Philippe already fixed that in trunk.
>
Mostly yes, but properly only for task creation/shadowing requests. There is
still a problem with the glibc caching the priority level with set_priority()
calls, since we only rely on the nucleus, without telling the glibc about the
change. However, this would trigger a secondary mode switch.
AFAIC, I don't see how changing priorities on the fly within a time critical
section could be considered as good programming practice; this would tend to
indicate that somebody is playing with priorities to paper over an application
design issue. For that reason, enduring a mode switch upon
rt_task_set_priority() calls (and friends) would be ok for me. But that's
certainly debatable.
--
Philippe.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-02 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-02 15:51 [Xenomai-core] rt_task_set_priority vs. Linux priority Jan Kiszka
2008-10-02 15:52 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-10-02 16:06 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-10-02 16:06 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-10-02 16:10 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-10-02 16:18 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-10-02 16:30 ` Philippe Gerum
2008-10-02 16:37 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-10-02 16:48 ` Philippe Gerum
2008-10-02 16:12 ` Philippe Gerum [this message]
2008-10-02 16:18 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2008-10-02 16:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-10-02 16:26 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-10-02 16:45 ` Philippe Gerum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48E4F2E9.2020909@domain.hid \
--to=rpm@xenomai.org \
--cc=gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org \
--cc=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.