> 1) On linux you must be running as root in order to be able
> to set SCHED_FIFO.
> The code is written to silently revert to non-priority
> scheduling if EPERM is returned.
I am curious. Is it possible to specify scheduling priorities for threads,
even if process global strict FIFO scheduling of isn't permissible?
It is a very good idea I think to have some sort of prioritized scheduling
for the threads even if it isn't perfect. I know that UNIX can prioritize
time slicing of processes, but perhaps this can't yet be applied to
individual threads?
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty Kraimer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 8:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: priorities
>
> Jeff Hill wrote:
>
> > Pursuing this a bit further, I notice, using epicsThreadShowAll, that
> the
> > OSI => OSD priority mapping maybe isn't working on POSIX (the OSSPRI
> > column
> > is always zero)?
> >
> > Again, this is building with USE_POSIX_THREAD_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING = YES.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Two "features" of priority scheduling on linux.
>
> 1) On linux you must be running as root in order to be able to set
> SCHED_FIFO.
> The code is written to silently revert to non-priority scheduling if
> EPERM is returned.
> 2) Older versions of linux (perhaps all 2.4 versions without special
> patches) do not seem to support priority scheduling. The implementations
> seem to just silently ignore the priority scheduling requests even
> though _POSIX_THREAD_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING is defined.
>
> This it seems that the only way to know if priority scheduling is being
> used is to run epicsThreadShowAll and see if the OSS prioritys have non
> zero values.
>
> Note that solaris shows non-zero values WITHOUT being root. When I run
> top, I notice that the LWP has higher values than other processes. I do
> not know how solaris is managing the priorities.
>
> Marty
- Replies:
- Re: priorities Marty Kraimer
- References:
- Re: priorities Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
reacting to CA server availability Jeff Hill
- Next:
Re: reacting to CA server availability Ralph Lange
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: priorities Eric Norum
- Next:
Re: priorities Marty Kraimer
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|