* [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio @ 2014-07-06 9:20 Matthias Schneider 2014-07-06 9:23 ` Philippe Gerum 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthias Schneider @ 2014-07-06 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xenomai@xenomai.org 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? 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... Thanks for clarification, regards, Matthias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio 2014-07-06 9:20 [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio Matthias Schneider @ 2014-07-06 9:23 ` Philippe Gerum 2014-07-06 9:36 ` Matthias Schneider 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Philippe Gerum @ 2014-07-06 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Schneider, xenomai@xenomai.org 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Xenomai mailing list > Xenomai@xenomai.org > http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai > -- Philippe. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio 2014-07-06 9:23 ` Philippe Gerum @ 2014-07-06 9:36 ` Matthias Schneider 2014-07-06 9:52 ` Philippe Gerum 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthias Schneider @ 2014-07-06 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philippe Gerum, xenomai@xenomai.org ----- 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? Regards, Matthias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio 2014-07-06 9:36 ` Matthias Schneider @ 2014-07-06 9:52 ` Philippe Gerum 2014-07-06 9:57 ` Philippe Gerum 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Philippe Gerum @ 2014-07-06 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Schneider, 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio 2014-07-06 9:52 ` Philippe Gerum @ 2014-07-06 9:57 ` Philippe Gerum 2014-07-06 19:00 ` Matthias Schneider 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Philippe Gerum @ 2014-07-06 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthias Schneider, xenomai@xenomai.org On 07/06/2014 11:52 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote: > 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. > No, we can't do that over Mercury, where we only have the limited 1-97 range available. So that would be high_prio -2 for Cobalt, but high_prio for Mercury. copperplate should be fixed on the Cobalt side. -- Philippe. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio 2014-07-06 9:57 ` Philippe Gerum @ 2014-07-06 19:00 ` Matthias Schneider 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Matthias Schneider @ 2014-07-06 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philippe Gerum, xenomai@xenomai.org ----- 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 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio > > On 07/06/2014 11:52 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> 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. >> > > No, we can't do that over Mercury, where we only have the limited 1-97 > range available. So that would be high_prio -2 for Cobalt, but high_prio > for Mercury. copperplate should be fixed on the Cobalt side. > > > -- > Philippe. > Thanks for the fix.. Matthias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-07-06 19:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-07-06 9:20 [Xenomai] Question about threadobj_irq_prio Matthias Schneider 2014-07-06 9:23 ` Philippe Gerum 2014-07-06 9:36 ` Matthias Schneider 2014-07-06 9:52 ` Philippe Gerum 2014-07-06 9:57 ` Philippe Gerum 2014-07-06 19:00 ` Matthias Schneider
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.