From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4F8457FD.5040307@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:55:41 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F50A422.50208@domain.hid> <4F55C306.8020307@domain.hid> <4F55D765.7040705@domain.hid> <4F55E390.8090706@domain.hid> <4F55FE81.6000904@domain.hid> <4F560A6C.2080306@domain.hid> <4F560B76.5080606@domain.hid> <4F5629D2.50304@domain.hid> <4F562B53.7070400@domain.hid> <4F562EC2.6040604@domain.hid> <4F56387B.40702@domain.hid> <4F575BA3.7060404@domain.hid> <4F576622.1030509@domain.hid> <4F57A567.7030008@domain.hid> <4F7C127D.2010400@domain.hid> <4F7C1484.5090406@domain.hid> <4F7C183F.5040009@domain.hid> <4F7F0D4E.8080906@domain.hid> <4F7F0E8A.70702@domain.hid> <4F7F20F0.9070007@domain.hid> <4F80BD10.2060200@domain.hid> <4F83F2C3.50704@domain.hid> <4F83F321.2030300@domain.hid> <4F83F645.7040402@domain.hid> <4F83F828.4000508@domain.hid> <4F83F929.5000300@domain.hid> <4F83FBAB.7040301@domain.hid> <4F83FF49.90608@domain.hid> <4F840DD8.2030407@domain.hid> <4F841E32.50101@domain.hid> <4F8428AA.1040404@domain.hid> <4F842934.8090503@domain.hid> <4F842E7F.5000208@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4F842E7F.5000208@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] preemptive doesn't work List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Roberto Bielli Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On 04/10/2012 02:58 PM, Roberto Bielli wrote: > In the xenomai example the task periodic is 2ms not 200us. ( > rt_task_sleep( 2ms 000us 000ns ) ); sorry, I misred. > And the 10ms is because the default system time period of the timer > without xenomai is ~10ms. > So a process that execute in linux base can be re-scheduled only when > the timer generate an interrupt , the task makes I/O, or sleeps. That is only if you do not use CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS, in which case you are not in the same configuration as xenomai, and the test does not mean anything. > > > > Il 10/04/2012 14:36, Gilles Chanteperdrix ha scritto: >> On 04/10/2012 02:33 PM, Roberto Bielli wrote: >>> Il 10/04/2012 13:49, Gilles Chanteperdrix ha scritto: >>>> On 04/10/2012 12:39 PM, Roberto Bielli wrote: >>>>> Hi Gilles, >>>>> >>>>> i tried your code but th behavior is the same. >>>>> >>>>> Then i tried a linux base app and works correctly. >>>> In the exact same conditions? With the crunching task running with >>>> SCHED_FIFO, priority 1, and the periodic task running with SCHED_FIFO, >>>> priority 99, and the linux real-time throttling disabled? >>>> >>> Yes, and i see that every LATCH ( about ~10ms ) period the task with >>> higher priority is wakeup. >> In the example you sent the periodic task was running with a 200us >> period, not 10ms. >> > > -- Gilles.