Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

On 19/03/2021 14:36, jan.som...@dlr.de wrote: How would I temporarily disable preemption for the current thread on its specific core only? You can raise its priority to zero. This is also more effective in uniprocessor systems due to this bug: http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2365 For examp

RE: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

> -Original Message- > From: devel On Behalf Of Gedare Bloom > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:11 PM > To: Richi Dubey > Cc: rtems-de...@rtems.org > Subject: Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:25 AM Richi Dubey > wro

Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

> > It would not provide anything, and it might encourage a false sense of > concurrency-safety. I understand. Thanks! On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:40 AM Gedare Bloom wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:25 AM Richi Dubey wrote: > > > > Thanks for your help! I read the doc. > >> > >> This is defi

Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:25 AM Richi Dubey wrote: > > Thanks for your help! I read the doc. >> >> This is definitely an area where you have to think a bit at the >> conceptual purpose of the API/feature to realize why it can't >> work or is unsafe in SMP mode. > > I understand. The only reason w

Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

Thanks for your help! I read the doc. > This is definitely an area where you have to think a bit at the > conceptual purpose of the API/feature to realize why it can't > work or is unsafe in SMP mode. I understand. The only reason we would want to have a feature like no preemption for a thread is

Re: About is_non_preempt_mode_supported

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:54 AM Richi Dubey wrote: > Hi, > > I am debugging tm19 running on Strong APA scheduler. It gives the > following error: > rtems_signal_catch FAILED -- expected (RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL) got > (RTEMS_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) > > which is due to line 167 >