Timeline for Change of real time priority made no visible effect
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:36 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://unix.stackexchange.com/ with https://unix.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Feb 19, 2013 at 13:03 | vote | accept | TheMeaningfulEngineer | ||
| Feb 19, 2013 at 13:03 | answer | added | TheMeaningfulEngineer | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 22:44 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | This question is a bit borderline here — while setting priorities is something an admin might do, it's more of a developer concern. If you don't get an answer here, consider asking for migration to Stack Overflow or Electrical Engineering. (It would be a typical question for Embedded Programming and Design if that site is ever created.) | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 22:23 | comment | added | TheMeaningfulEngineer | @vonbrand Is it then safe to conclude that my process is the king of user space :). However, the problems that are preventing his real time behavior are happening in kernel space and are therefor not influenced by his ultimate priority as a user space process? | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 18:09 | comment | added | vonbrand | Then your process did not need/did not benefit from real time priority. No, real time priorities don't affect how interrupts are handled. Python wouldn't be my first choice for real-time either... | |
| Feb 12, 2013 at 14:38 | history | asked | TheMeaningfulEngineer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |