Re: Where to start with Kernel config for Atom (64bit) Xenomai4 (evl)

"Steub, Peter via Xenomai" writes: > Hi all, > > I like to get evl running on a quadcore Atom box. I started with a > standard ubuntu 20.04 installation Which will almost never work out of the box on x86. Some options commonly selected there will likely cause issues with any real-time

Where to start with Kernel config for Atom (64bit) Xenomai4 (evl)

Hi all, I like to get evl running on a quadcore Atom box. I started with a standard ubuntu 20.04 installation and build a kernel from ,v5.15.y-evl-rebase' branch with evl enabled and things that ,evl check -file' told me disabled. Good news: the kernel runs and I do have a evl api. Bad news:

Re: System hang on first PCIe MSI interrupt with I-pipe kernels newer than 4.14.62

On 16.03.22 10:58, Scott Reed wrote: > > > On 3/15/22 9:42 AM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: >> >> >> On 3/15/22 7:32 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 14.03.22 18:45, Scott Reed wrote: On 3/11/22 2:13 PM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: > > On 3/11/22 12:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:

Re: System hang on first PCIe MSI interrupt with I-pipe kernels newer than 4.14.62

On 3/16/22 10:58 AM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: On 3/15/22 9:42 AM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: On 3/15/22 7:32 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: On 14.03.22 18:45, Scott Reed wrote: On 3/11/22 2:13 PM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: On 3/11/22 12:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: On 11.03.22

Re: System hang on first PCIe MSI interrupt with I-pipe kernels newer than 4.14.62

On 3/15/22 9:42 AM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: On 3/15/22 7:32 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: On 14.03.22 18:45, Scott Reed wrote: On 3/11/22 2:13 PM, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: On 3/11/22 12:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: On 11.03.22 11:12, Scott Reed via Xenomai wrote: Hello, I am seeing

Re: waitqueue vs. mutex behavior

Matt Klass via Xenomai writes: > Using Xenomai 3.0.10, with kernel 4.9.128-05789, on armv7, we're having > problems with the functionality of rtdm_waitqueues. The code was written by > a Xenomai-adept developer who has since left for greener pastures. > > We have two functions that use

RE: CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL = y but still have arch-timer on isolation CPUs

Hi Ivan The description I posted follows " Got it to work. My final set of kernel parameters was isolcpus=nohz,domain,8-15 nohz_full=8-15. Moreover, I realized that I was running my program with FIFO scheduling via chrt -f but forgot to set /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us to -1, which

Re: CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL = y but still have arch-timer on isolation CPUs

On 15.03.22 05:01, Ivan Jiang via Xenomai wrote: > Dear Guys: > > > >    I’ve set the configs like this > >    CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL = y > > CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y > > CONFIG_PREEMPT=y > > CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n > > CONFIG_ARM_CPUIDLE=n > > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n > > And setenv isolcpus=1

Re: CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL = y but still have arch-timer on isolation CPUs

Dear Hongzhan： Seems the tsc=reliable doesn't have effect. BTW tsc is the clock source of x86, I was wandering if it's the same usage for ARM64? Thank you. Ivan 在 2022/3/16 14:16，“Chen, Hongzhan” 写入: Hi Ivan According to the description "@sevko I found that I didn't

RE: CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL = y but still have arch-timer on isolation CPUs

Hi Ivan According to the description "@sevko I found that I didn't need the nohz_full= (I think it's redundant given the isolcpus=nohz) but I had to add tsc=reliable, on CentOS 8 with kernel 4.18. – Joshua Chia" , it seems that there is solution with 4.18 , which should work with 4.19?