> On vxWorks I am really afraid of allowing any user thread to be
> higher priority than the network threads. This caused
> failures in the past.
We have a new vxWorks IP kernel now so it is conceivable that this issue
has been resolved, but even after our regression tests pass I'm not sure
that we know for certain that the problem does not still exist. So the
challenge would be to find a way to test the new configuration on some
heavy loaded, but otherwise non-critical IOCs.
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty Kraimer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: Eric Norum
> Cc: Jeff Hill; 'Till Straumann'; 'Johnson, Andrew N.'
> Subject: Re: base max thread priority
>
> Eric Norum wrote:
>
> > Maybe something like:
> > static const unsigned epicsThreadPriorityIocsh = 91;
> > static const unsigned epicsThreadPriorityNetworkDaemons = 95;
> > static const unsigned epicsThreadPriorityBaseMax = 91;
> <<<Still
> > waiting for you folks to come up with a better name... >>>
> >
> > Then EPICS applications could still have priorities higher
> than the
> > shell but lower than the network daemons, or even priorities
> higher than
> > the network daemons as necessary.
> >
>
> Why not just have
>
>
> static const unsigned epicsThreadPriorityBaseMax = 91;
>
> Then iocsh could just use this as it's priority.
>
> epicsThreadPriorityNetworkDaemons doesn't sound like an epics
> base issue. It is
> an OS epecific issue, e.g. it is an RTEMS issue. If we add it
> it will, at least
> for now, be used only for RTEMS. Does it even make sense for
> systems where
> iocCore is running in user space? Thus at leats for now it will
> only apply to RTEMS.
>
> On vxWorks I am really afraid of allowing any user thread to be
> higher priority
> than the network threads. This caused failures in the past.
>
>
> Marty
- References:
- Re: base max thread priority Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
RE: base max thread priority Jeff Hill
- Next:
Re: base max thread priority Eric Norum
- Index:
<2002>
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: base max thread priority Marty Kraimer
- Next:
RE: base max thread priority Jeff Hill
- Index:
<2002>
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
|