Dear Ralph,
I assume that "you" means me in your message because I
triggered this chain of e-mails. If not, please just ignore
this e-mail.
(I know "you" can mean unspecified persons in English.)
What I wanted to do was to give "CAS-client" a priority
higher than that of "scan-0.1" because commands sent from
a CA client to an IOC start to be lost when the number of
records being processed with the SCAN value of ".1 seconds"
was increased.
But now I understand that the problem of mine is not an
issue of priorities of threads but an issue of something
else.
(I think default priorities of the EPICS IOC threads
are well-chosen as you mentioned in a previous e-mail.)
I do not want to choose multiple IOCs solution because
I want to keep the system as simple as possible.
The value of PRIO field is irrelevant because I do not
rely on callback threads in my device support.
I can not choose multiple parallel callback solution
because my system is single-CPU system.
I now suspect that the origin of my problem is not on
IOC-side but on a custom device-side being controlled
by the IOC.
Lots of thanks anyway for your detailed comments and
advice.
Best regards,
J.Odagiri at KEK
----- Original Message -----
> So, coming back to what (I think) was the original question:
> How to change the priority of the general purpose callback threads (
named
> "cb...") to be higher than a periodic scanning thread?
>
> You don't have to. Use the PRIO field.
> There are three (sets of) general purpose callback threads, related to
the
> three values of the records' PRIO field: Low, Medium and High.
> Their priorities are designed to be lower than all periodic processing
> (Low), halfway between the slow and the fast periodic processing (
Medium)
> and higher than all period processing (High). For each record, the
thread
> used for callback processing is selected based on the setting of its
PRIO
> field.
> On multi-CPU systems, you can also enable multiple parallel callback
> threads (e.g., one per CPU) to boost the callback and 'I/O Intr'
processing
> power of your IOC.
>
> Only if these mechanisms show not being sufficient for your
application,
> additional steps need to be taken. In most cases, I would assume
further
> parallelization (splitting up the application to multiple IOCs, adding
more
> CPU power) to be more efficient than tuning priorities.
>
> Cheers,
> ~Ralph
>
- Replies:
- Re: Usage of an EPICS word jun-ichi.odagiri--- via Tech-talk
- References:
- Usage of an EPICS word jun-ichi.odagiri--- via Tech-talk
- Re: Usage of an EPICS word Mark Rivers via Tech-talk
- Re: Usage of an EPICS word Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Area Detector and Flea2 camera problem Jeong Han Lee via Tech-talk
- Next:
Re: Changing EPICS general Purpose Thread's Priorities Jeong Han Lee via Tech-talk
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
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: Usage of an EPICS word Ralph Lange via Tech-talk
- Next:
Re: Usage of an EPICS word jun-ichi.odagiri--- via Tech-talk
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
<2021>
2022
2023
2024
|