* [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
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
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
----- 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
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
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
----- 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.