On Jan 22, 2008 5:23 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe,
what was the idea behind commit #3256 [1]? It breaks the original
behavior of selection adeos-ipipe-2.6.23-... in the presence of 2.6.23.x
- and leaves a
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Please find attached a patch implementing these ideas. This adds some
clutter, which I would be happy to reduce. Better ideas are welcome.
Ok. New version of the patch, this time split in two parts, should
hopefully make it more readable.
- avoid
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
after some (unsuccessful) time trying to instrument the code in a way
that does not change the latency results completely, I found the
reason for the high latency with latency -t 1 and latency -t 2 on ARM.
So, here comes an update on this issue. The
Jose Augusto Matos Santos wrote:
Hi,
I would like to understand Xenomai's scheduler and it will be a pleasure if
you recomend me something to read.
There are two things you can read:
- the source, yes, sorry, but this is the best documentation; fortunately,
Xenomai scheduler is way
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
after some (unsuccessful) time trying to instrument the code in a way
that does not change the latency results completely, I found the
reason for the high latency with latency -t 1 and latency -t 2 on ARM.
So, here comes
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Hi,
after some (unsuccessful) time trying to instrument the code in a way
that does not change the latency results completely, I found the
reason for the high latency with latency -t 1 and
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Does the patch improve ARM latencies already?
Yes, it does. The (interrupt) latency goes from above 100us to
80us. This is not yet 50us, though.
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix.
___
