Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Brian L. wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I create a native-skin RT_TASK from userspace with no flags, i.e.
>>>>
>>>> void task(void*)
>>>> {
>>>> for (;;) ;
>>>> }
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> RT_TASK t;
>>>> rt_task_create(&t, 0, 3, 0);
>>>> rt_task_start(&t,task,0);
>>>> (do something which blocks)
>>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mlockall left out for simplicity? Or is it also missing on your real
>>> test? In the latter case, occasional application crashes are "normal"
>>> (as described below).
>>>
>>> Philippe, you suggested some code for detecting this. We should really,
>>> really add this soon (maybe to the exception path)!
>>>
>>
>> The submitted patch works pretty well detecting unlocked memory, I'm
>> using it right now, but I'd like something a bit more self-explanatory
>> than just receiving SIGXCPU. I don't think the execption path is the
>> right place to put this, since the mlockall issue causes random bugs,
>> and you likely want to detect them early and unconditionally.
>>
>
> Commit #941 should provide a reliable guard against lack of process
> memory locking.
> Hmm, a simple test using the latency tool with disabled mlockall did not yet show any effect on my system. Shouldn't there pop up some message when starting such a "broken" program? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
