On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:23 PM Richi Dubey wrote:
>>
>> Your scheduler is a unique piece of software. It may be making assumptions
>> that are not checked in the generic scheduler code. And checks in other
>> schedulers are of no use to you.
>> There may not be any but this is something to con
>
> Your scheduler is a unique piece of software. It may be making assumptions
> that are not checked in the generic scheduler code. And checks in other
> schedulers are of no use to you.
> There may not be any but this is something to consider. There are existing
> checks scattered throughout the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:47 AM Richi Dubey wrote:
>>>
>>> There are existing checks scattered throughout the source. Do any need to
>>> be in your scheduler?
>>
>> I don't understand. If there are already checks scattered through, w
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 10:47 AM Richi Dubey wrote:
> There are existing checks scattered throughout the source. Do any need to
>> be in your scheduler?
>
> I don't understand. If there are already checks scattered through, why do
> I need more checks in my scheduler? Are these checks independent
>
> There are existing checks scattered throughout the source. Do any need to
> be in your scheduler?
I don't understand. If there are already checks scattered through, why do I
need more checks in my scheduler? Are these checks independent from the
checks I might need in the scheduler? Please exp
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 10:47 AM Richi Dubey wrote:
> Hi Mr. Huber,
>
> Thanks for checking in.
>
> I suggested to enable your new scheduler implementation as the default
>> to check if it is in line with the standard schedulers. I would first
>> get some high level data. Select a BSP with good tes
Hi Mr. Huber,
Thanks for checking in.
I suggested to enable your new scheduler implementation as the default
> to check if it is in line with the standard schedulers. I would first
> get some high level data. Select a BSP with good test results on a
> simulator (for example sparc/leon3 or arm/rea
Hello Richi,
I suggested to enable your new scheduler implementation as the default
to check if it is in line with the standard schedulers. I would first
get some high level data. Select a BSP with good test results on a
simulator (for example sparc/leon3 or arm/realview_pbx_a9_qemu). Run the
Hi,
The scheduler doesnt seem to be involved in rtems_task_exit. I believe the
scheduler is doing something wrong during the execution of rtems_yield for
TA1. Is it related to isr_level? Please find the stacktrace below for
execution of TA5 after TA1 yields:
(gdb)
0x00103c28 in Task5 (argument=0
Okay, I'm gonna do that. Thanks for the help.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:47 PM Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:38 AM Richi Dubey wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been trying to debug sp16 for the last few days. I am using the
> new Strong APA scheduler we worked on during this GSo
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:38 AM Richi Dubey wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been trying to debug sp16 for the last few days. I am using the new
> Strong APA scheduler we worked on during this GSoC. The scheduler fails only
> for the following tests:
>
> sp02.exe
> sp16.exe
> sp30.exe
> sp31.exe
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
