From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4F842934.8090503@domain.hid>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:36:04 +0200
From: Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4F8428AA.1040404@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 <xenomai.xenomai.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/options/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Archive: </public/xenomai-core>
List-Post: <mailto:xenomai@xenomai.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
List-Subscribe: <https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core>,
	<mailto:xenomai-core-request@domain.hid>
To: Roberto Bielli <roberto.bielli@domain.hid>
Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org

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.