Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752523Ab1FGJa2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 05:30:28 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:52104 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752102Ab1FGJa0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 05:30:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4DEDF1F2.2080204@steinhoff.de> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:40:02 +0200 From: Armin Steinhoff User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: Johannes Bauer , Peter Zijlstra , Monica Puig-Pey , Rolando Martins , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Changing Kernel thread priorities References: <17185480.5304.1307435255996.JavaMail.root@WARSBL214.highway.telekom.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:lIBGmwjp3ppHE4Cf1q+W2RaxtGAa0FyapVHxgd9/gBu Pvaa1eKwEFlI3zpf8MZ+nVouHZI1kq6+bg1Rnj0aP3v5blolZQ h6xcJpSPoovC55gjJj76iJTlIFSWltyxcGuKYzMkbB1a5d/JDw lUAWeshzpZ++Woo476r+/Z89stDU2WE8vH3eA8dl25ePJYF5/s F9x9r9T/x2WKZETJCUvCQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2420 Lines: 70 Hi, when I read all these confusing statements here ( in german it looks like an "Eiertanz") ... I can only say: - do the basic stuff in a minimal kernel driver - use UIO (or VFIO for PCI devices) and you get clean control about your real-time priorities. I think changing the priorities of "interrupt threads" inside the kernel could lead to strange race conditions in the kernel. That seems to be the reason for that "Eiertanz" here :) --Armin Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Johannes Bauer wrote: > > Please stop top-posting and use proper line breaks at 78 > >>> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> "Monica Puig-Pey" wrote: >>>> I need to change the priority from inside the driver, when creating the >>>> kernel thread. >>> No you don't. How does you driver know about what priority is correct >>> wrt all the other running RT tasks on the system? >>> >>> Determining the right priority in a fixed priority scheduling system is >>> a system wide problem, nobody but the administrator can possibly even >>> begin to solve it. >>> >>> There's a reason all RT irq threads are started at 50, its plain >>> impossible to do better. >> Absolutly correct! >> >> However, if you are running the system on an embedded platform, >> where the _WHOLE_ system (including priorities) is preconfigured and >> never touched, starting a irq thread with the right prio from start >> is a more straightforward method than having to invoke a script that >> changes it using userspace chrt tool. > Feel free to do that for your embedded system and carry the patch for > yourself if you think it's worth to avoid the extra init script. > > But we do _not_ add stuff like this to the mainline simply because > there is no way to find a prio setting which is appropriate for all > users of a particular driver. > > Aside of that the extra init script is definitely less annoying to > maintain than the crap you need to hack into random drivers. > > Thanks, > > tglx > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- 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/