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 bad first impression for beginners (I received such a
>>
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
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.
>
> >
> > - a
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. Th
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 co
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 late
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.
___
Xenomai-co
