lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: possible bug in RP kernel

* Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:01:15 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > > 23 seconds gap between two wakeups
> > >
> > > Maybe my understanding of how sched fifo works is wrong, but i assumed
> > > a higher prio thread shold get woken up from a sleep by the scheduler
> > > which gets run by the timer interrupt [which is still non
> > > preemptible].
> >
> > depending on what type of timeout you are using you'll also need to chrt
> > the softirq-timer kernel thread(s) to prio 99. Otherwise the timer fn
> > will have no chance to be executed. There's work going on by Thomas to
> > make such things automatic, by prioritizing timers. If you have HRT
> > enabled in the .config then it should mostly be automatic already
> > though.
>
> Ah,
>
> thanks for the info. So it is a user (me) bug in the end :) This has
> helped. Actually the code i had attached had another bug in it. But
> that wasn't the responsible one.

well, it's not really your 'bug' - the priority setup isnt very
intuitive at the moment, and the goal is to automate as much of it as
possible. The way various system threads interact is highly
implementation dependent, and you shouldnt really be required to know
about softirq-timer. We'll try to simplify these things as much as
possible.

Ingo
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-12 11:33    [W:0.040 / U:1.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site