Posix priority vs. RTEMS priority (Sebastian Huber)

[Joel Sherrill]

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Sebastian Huber <
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:

> On 31/03/17 20:22, Heinz Junkes wrote:
>
>> thank you for your answer. In the RTEMS Manual you can read
>> that the initialization task should run at Maximum Priority (Classic API).
>> (which sounds reasonable)
>>
>> If then the POSIX_Init should also be startet at that level -> POSIX prio
>> 254?
>>
>> Instead of the low prio “2” ?
>>
>
> I am not sure if this is a bug or feature, but changing this would alter
> the behaviour of all existing applications using POSIX initialization
> threads.
>

I don't remember the rationale for this selection either.


>
> You can change the priority in your initialization thread or we may add a
> new configuration option, e.g.
>
> CONFIGURE_POSIX_INIT_THREAD_PRIORITY
>
>
We didn't know that initially because it required pulling in a fair number
of POSIX
APIs to set the priority and other scheduling parameters. A priority only
makes
sense in POSIX in the context of setting a policy. Before you know it, the
confdefs.h
options needed to support more and we needed to call more APIs.

We opted for small and assumed the user would change when the thread ran
if they needed to.


> --
> Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
>
> Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
> Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
> E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> PGP     : Public key available on request.
>
> Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20170403/53a2f737/attachment-0002.html>