Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RT question : softirq and minimal user RT priority | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:05:24 -0400 |
| |
Please don't trim CC lists
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 09:21 -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote: > Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> Is the smallest usable real-time priority greater than the highest real-time softirq ? > > > > Nope, you can use any rt priority you want. It's up to you whether you > > want to preempt the softirqs or not. Be careful, timers may be preempted > > from delivering signals to high priority processes. I have a patch to > > fix this, but I'm waiting on input from either Thomas Gleixner or Ingo. > > > > -- Steve > > I know this is an old thread but I seem to be having a problem similar > to this and I didn't find any real resolution in the archives. > > I'm using the rt16 patch on 2.6.16.5 with complete preemption. I have a > high priority rt compute bound task that isn't getting signals from a > pci cards interrupt handler. Only when I insure the rt priority of the > task is lower than the rt priority of the irq thread ([IRQ 193]) will my > task receive signals. > > Is this a bug? Is the bug in my interrupt handler? Or is this expected > and acceptable?
It's expected if your high priority RT task never gives up the CPU - if this is the case the IRQ thread should have higher priority.
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |