From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <53B91C45.8090802@xenomai.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:52:05 +0200
From: Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1404638402.36454.YahooMailNeo@web171603.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
 <53B91595.9060604@xenomai.org>
 <1404639382.8763.YahooMailNeo@web171605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1404639382.8763.YahooMailNeo@web171605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio
List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/options/xenomai>,
 <mailto:xenomai-request@xenomai.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-request@xenomai.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai>,
 <mailto:xenomai-request@xenomai.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Matthias Schneider <ma30002000@yahoo.de>, "xenomai@xenomai.org" <xenomai@xenomai.org>

On 07/06/2014 11:36 AM, Matthias Schneider wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>
>> To: Matthias Schneider <ma30002000@yahoo.de>; "xenomai@xenomai.org" <xenomai@xenomai.org>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio
>>
>> On 07/06/2014 11:20 AM, Matthias Schneider wrote:
>>>   Hi all,
>>>
>>>   I was under the expression that the max cobal scheduling prio in
>>>   forge was now 256 and that SCHED_COBALT had been replaced with
>>>   SCHED_FIFO. Is this correct?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>   Anyway,
>>>
>>>   threadobj_pkg_init(void) initializes
>>>   threadobj_irq_prio = __RT(sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_CORE));
>>>   which is still mapping to 258 - however I would rather expect
>>>   256...
>>>
>>
>> 256 regular FIFO levels, +2 special levels for scheduler lock (mercury
>> only) and interrupt service emulation (both cores).
>>
>>
>>>   Thanks for clarification,
>>>
>>>   regards,
>>>   Matthias
>>>
>
> I get
>
> threadobj_high_prio = 258
> threadobj_irq_prio = 259
> threadobj_agent_prio = 258
>
> and
>
> e.g. int psos_task_normalize_priority(unsigned long psos_prio)
>
> clips the prio to threadobj_high_prio. However it should
> clip prio at threadobj_high_prio - 2, shouldnt it?
>

Even 256 explicitly, since pSOS specifies this limit.

-- 
Philippe.