From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <519CAB81.40403@xenomai.org> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:26:57 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <595E8529-F95D-4AF7-990C-1E513191EC3B@mah.priv.at> In-Reply-To: <595E8529-F95D-4AF7-990C-1E513191EC3B@mah.priv.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] kernel equivalent of SIGXCPU List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Haberler Cc: "xenomai@xenomai.org" On 05/22/2013 12:01 PM, Michael Haberler wrote: > I'm trying to trap scheduling violations through an exception handler How do you define "scheduling violations" ? > > in user RT it's straightforward - use the SIGXCPU handler No, SIGXCPU detect involuntary mode switches to secondary mode, if you have the XNWARNSW bit set, it traps Linux system calls made by a thread running in secondary mode. > > is rthal_trap_catch() the way to go? rthal_trap_catch, allows to trap machine exceptions. > > or is it just evaluating the rt_task_wait_period() returns ? rt_task_wait_period returns an error when an overrun happens, that is when the timer ticks twice without the periodic thread having called rt_task_wait_period. > > I'm a bit fuzzy as to the relation between these two - the manual says for rthal_trap_catch() '...uncontrolled exception or fault is caught at machine level.'; does this include scheduling overruns? it seems not to I guess > > I have both in place but unsure atm what rthal_trap_catch() would buy me ontop There is not relation whatsoever between these three services. -- Gilles.