On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 18:32 +0100, trem wrote: > Hi > > As I've got your start now, I've ported (at least tried) the 2.6.19 > x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. > I've tried it and it seems to works fine, here the latency : > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat latency_xenomai_2_6_20.txt > [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10 > == Sampling period: 100 us > == Test mode: periodic user-mode task > == All results in microseconds > warming up... > RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99) > RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat > worst > RTD| 0.737| 1.067| 3.332| 0| 0.737| > 3.332 > RTD| 0.744| 1.067| 3.568| 0| 0.737| > 3.568 > RTD| 0.724| 1.080| 3.362| 0| 0.724| > 3.568 > RTD| 0.730| 1.070| 2.900| 0| 0.724| > 3.568 > RTD| 0.711| 1.071| 3.441| 0| 0.711| > 3.568 > RTD| 0.733| 1.066| 3.547| 0| 0.711| > 3.568 > RTD| 0.735| 1.079| 4.523| 0| 0.711| > 4.523 > RTD| 0.716| 1.072| 3.307| 0| 0.711| > 4.523 > RTD| 0.715| 1.066| 3.507| 0| 0.711| > 4.523 > ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|------------------------- > RTS| 0.711| 1.071| 4.523| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10 > > > The patch (2.6.20 x86_64) can be found here : > http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-07-trem.patch > > I hope it could be used. >
Merged, thanks. This upgrade is now available from the Adeos GIT repo and Xenomai's SVN trunk. > regards, > trem > > > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 23:24 +0100, trem wrote: > > > >> Philippe Gerum wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 00:50 +0100, trem wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> I've tried to port the 2.6.19 x86_64 adeos patch to 2.6.20. you can find > >>>> it here : > >>>> http://zarb.org/~trem/adeos-ipipe-2.6.20-x86_64-1.7-03-trem.patch > >>>> > >>>> > >>> The good news is that moving to 2.6.20 does not seem to be too much of a > >>> hell. Right? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Yes, there are few conflict so it's quite easy to port xenomai to 2.6.20. > >> > >>>> I can apply it with with prepare_kernel.sh (from xenomai svn), but I > >>>> haven't > >>>> tested it yet (I mean run kernel). > >>>> > >>>> I hope this patch is good enough to be used. Otherwise, I'd be pleased > >>>> to fix it (maybe with a bit of help). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> We are hopefully close to have a reasonably good patch for 2.6.19. Once > >>> we achieve this, porting to 2.6.20 should be the next step. Thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> I've seen ths in the Changelog : "this closes the implementation phase > >> of the x86_64 port." > >> So I suppose that the patch for 2.6.19 is finished. I've tried it and it > >> works fine. > >> The result of latency is : > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ sudo ./latency -T 10 > >> == Sampling period: 100 us > >> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task > >> == All results in microseconds > >> warming up... > >> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99) > >> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat > >> worst > >> RTD| 0.760| 1.073| 3.660| 0| 0.760| > >> 3.660 > >> RTD| 0.737| 1.063| 3.012| 0| 0.737| > >> 3.660 > >> RTD| 0.741| 1.083| 3.396| 0| 0.737| > >> 3.660 > >> RTD| 0.755| 1.088| 2.344| 0| 0.737| > >> 3.660 > >> RTD| 0.754| 1.093| 3.431| 0| 0.737| > >> 3.660 > >> RTD| 0.755| 1.089| 5.119| 0| 0.737| > >> 5.119 > >> RTD| 0.724| 1.091| 3.126| 0| 0.724| > >> 5.119 > >> RTD| 0.762| 1.089| 3.171| 0| 0.724| > >> 5.119 > >> RTD| 0.751| 1.097| 5.508| 0| 0.724| > >> 5.508 > >> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|------------------------- > >> RTS| 0.724| 1.085| 5.508| 0| 00:00:10/00:00:10 > >> > >> If I don't mistake, I see a max latency of 5us. Is it realistic ? > >> > >> > > > > Yes. X-related problems Paul told us about being put aside (likely MTRR > > issues, still to be chased), I see < 10 us under SMP test load on a 2 x > > dual core Opteron 285 here (test load meaning two parallel kernel > > compilations (-j5), and some significant network load). > > > > We still have to benchmark this port more exhaustively and aggressively > > (e.g. different I/O loads and severe cache trashing, for longer than 8 > > hours), but the foundations look sane, especially since the > > Xenomai/x86_64 port currently runs with a default latency calibration > > set to 500 ns over this. > > > > > >> Now, the port to 2.6.20 is open ? we can work on ? > >> > >> > > > > Yep. Have fun. > > > > > >> trem > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Adeos-main mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
