Hi,
as suggested in an earlier mail, here is a patch that - as I think -
improves the behaviour of librtdm. It will let applications start even
if the kernel services of RTDM are not available. Instead, -ENODEV or
-EAFNOSUPPORT will be returned in this case when the user tries to open
some device
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this is fully working proposal how to re-enable in-kernel timer latency
> > benchmarks.
> >
> > More precisely, it adds a new RTDM device "rtbenchmark" (and also a
> > new RTDM class) which can execute either a kernel task
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is fully working proposal how to re-enable in-kernel timer latency
> benchmarks.
>
> More precisely, it adds a new RTDM device "rtbenchmark" (and also a
> new RTDM class) which can execute either a kernel task or timer
> periodically. The benchmark dev
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> ...
>> Anyway, there seems to be some latency issues pending. I discovered this
>> again with my migration test. Please give it a try on a mid- (800 MHz
>> Athlon in my case) to low-end box. On that Athlon I got peaks of over
>> 100 us in the userspace l
Hi,
as suggested in an earlier mail, here is a patch that - as I think -
improves the behaviour of librtdm. It will let applications start even
if the kernel services of RTDM are not available. Instead, -ENODEV or
-EAFNOSUPPORT will be returned in this case when the user tries to open
some device
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
this is fully working proposal how to re-enable in-kernel timer latency
benchmarks.
More precisely, it adds a new RTDM device "rtbenchmark" (and also a
new RTDM class) which can execute either a kernel task or timer
periodically. The benchmark device generates all the
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this is fully working proposal how to re-enable in-kernel timer latency
> > benchmarks.
> >
> > More precisely, it adds a new RTDM device "rtbenchmark" (and also a
> > new RTDM class) which can execute either a kernel task
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is fully working proposal how to re-enable in-kernel timer latency
> benchmarks.
>
> More precisely, it adds a new RTDM device "rtbenchmark" (and also a
> new RTDM class) which can execute either a kernel task or timer
> periodically. The benchmark dev
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> ...
>> Anyway, there seems to be some latency issues pending. I discovered this
>> again with my migration test. Please give it a try on a mid- (800 MHz
>> Athlon in my case) to low-end box. On that Athlon I got peaks of over
>> 100 us in the userspace l
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi all,
this is fully working proposal how to re-enable in-kernel timer latency
benchmarks.
More precisely, it adds a new RTDM device "rtbenchmark" (and also a
new RTDM class) which can execute either a kernel task or timer
periodically. The benchmark device generates all the
10 matches
Mail list logo