Thanks Philip.
Then it isn�t possible that a high priority task interrupt the work is doing a
low priority task.??? I mean, without hardware interrupts.
So, the designer of the system must know at any moment what he want to do. There
is not any posibility of having an error in the design. If you miss something
your system may never recover.
I�m correct??
worm
Philip N Daly escribi�:
> >
> > I unsdestood, reading docs and mailing list, that the scheduler in
> > rtlinux is a priority one. Let�s say, that if i run the three threads in
> > a periodic form, the one with priority executes first, then the one with
> > priority 2 and so on. If, during the execution of thread 2, thread 1
> > need the cpu because of its period, the scheduler should interrupt the
> > execution of thread 2 and start executes thread 1, because it priority.
> > The same things happen if it�s running thread 3 and thread 2 need to
> > run.
> > Is it true? I don�t know if i�m wrong. I did a code with three threads
> > that is not working as i�ve just described.
>
> No, it's a fixed priority scheduler that is pre-emptive on the Linux kernel.
> The real-time executive is *not* pre-emptive ... once a task has the CPU
> (no matter what it's priority), it retains it until it suspends itself. At
> that point, the higher priority task will get the CPU and so on.
>
> Regards,
>
> +==================================================================+
> Phil Daly, NOAO/AURA, 950 N. Cherry Avenue, Tucson AZ 85719, U S A
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] V-mail: (520) 318 8438 Fax: (520) 318 8360
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
