On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:03:34AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> the issue on ixp looks like the last one to be fixed on arm. If you have
> time, could you try the following program? It makes a very basic test,
> but not having a big-endian ixp at end, I am wondering about very basic
> assum
On 04/14/2011 06:42 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe
>> enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order to see if the
>> tsc behaves correctly.
>
>
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:15:00PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> some temporary results on the benchmark here:
>>> http://www.xenomai.org/~gch/latency-at91sam9263.png
>>>
>>> The worst case latency seems not to vary much over time, it
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:15:00PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> some temporary results on the benchmark here:
>> http://www.xenomai.org/~gch/latency-at91sam9263.png
>>
>> The worst case latency seems not to vary much over time, it looks like
>> it is decreasing a b
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:15:00PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
> some temporary results on the benchmark here:
> http://www.xenomai.org/~gch/latency-at91sam9263.png
>
> The worst case latency seems not to vary much over time, it looks like
> it is decreasing a bit, but the differences ma
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe
enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order t
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 07:55:35AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> I also had a look at the culprit patch, reducing it to the bare minimum
>> (no useless whitespace changes and no function moves), and it boils down
>> to only two differences:
>> 1- the fact that we us
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 07:55:35AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> I also had a look at the culprit patch, reducing it to the bare minimum
> (no useless whitespace changes and no function moves), and it boils down
> to only two differences:
> 1- the fact that we use the "generic" clocksource c
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe
enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order t
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe
>>> enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order to see if the
>>> tsc behaves corre
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe
>> enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order to see if the
>> tsc behaves correctly.
>
> Getting back to this, I
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Not only that. The aim of the test is to trigger the worst case path. I
>> suspect you can not trigger it with a 10 minutes tests. As you probably
>> remember, I was once running Xenomai on IXP465, and
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Not only that. The aim of the test is to trigger the worst case path. I
> suspect you can not trigger it with a 10 minutes tests. As you probably
> remember, I was once running Xenomai on IXP465, and the latency with
> Xenomai
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe
> enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order to see if the
> tsc behaves correctly.
Getting back to this, I did try the test program with i
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> What compiler are you using by the way?
>
> I compiled this one myself using crosstool-ng. At the time I had first
> tried gcc 4.3, but you advised me that it would not work for xenomai.
All codesour
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:17:43AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> What compiler are you using by the way?
I compiled this one myself using crosstool-ng. At the time I had first
tried gcc 4.3, but you advised me that it would not work for xenomai.
Target: armeb-unknown-linux-gnueabi
Configu
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26:33PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Wait a minute. You are comparing results obtained after 2 or 3, or 10
>> minutes of runtime? I am not sure such results are meaningful. I do my
>> benchmarks with the noltp_hell test:
>> http://git.xen
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:26:33PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Wait a minute. You are comparing results obtained after 2 or 3, or 10
> minutes of runtime? I am not sure such results are meaningful. I do my
> benchmarks with the noltp_hell test:
> http://git.xenomai.org/?p=mkrootfs.git;a=bl
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:34:14AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> I will try xenomai 2.5 with ipipe 2.6.35 next...
>
> I meant to say, Xenomai 2.4 with ipipe 2.6.35, but this does not work
> because the kernel definitions have changed:
>
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:34:14AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Richard Cochran wrote:
> > I will try xenomai 2.5 with ipipe 2.6.35 next...
I meant to say, Xenomai 2.4 with ipipe 2.6.35, but this does not work
because the kernel definitions have changed:
include/asm-generic/xenomai/hal.h
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Also, about the performances, Xenomai 2.4 did not have the Xenomai
>> preemptible context switches. Maybe with FCSE, it results in reduced
>> latencies to disable this option in Xenomai 2.5.
>
> So, a
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>
> Also, about the performances, Xenomai 2.4 did not have the Xenomai
> preemptible context switches. Maybe with FCSE, it results in reduced
> latencies to disable this option in Xenomai 2.5.
So, are you saying that XENO_HW_UN
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:50:16PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Just to have an idea where the issue come from, could you try reverting
>>> all the changes which were made on the tsc and timer? i.e. revert to the
>>> original ipipe_mach_get_tsc and ipipe_mach_set_
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:50:16PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Just to have an idea where the issue come from, could you try reverting
>>> all the changes which were made on the tsc and timer? i.e. revert to the
>>> original ipipe_mach_get_tsc and ipipe_mach_set_
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:50:16PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >
> > Just to have an idea where the issue come from, could you try reverting
> > all the changes which were made on the tsc and timer? i.e. revert to the
> > original ipipe_mach_get_tsc and ipipe_mach_set_dec?
> >
> The exac
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 09:50:16PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Richard Cochran wrote:
> >> Update: It is not enough for me to enable IPIPE_DEBUG. The kernels
> >> that boot have all of the XENO_OPT_DEBUG options enabled.
> >>
> >> Disabling XENO_OPT_DEBUG r
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:41:22PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> I tried disabling various CONFIG options, and I found by accident that
>>> enabling IPIPE_DEBUG allows the system to run just fine.
>> Update: It is not enough for me to enab
Richard Cochran wrote:
> cat /dev/mem > /dev/null
Are you really doing this? This is not a good idea. Please do your tests
without this, this alone can cause the hardware to freeze. In fact, I
would recommend using the new xeno-test available in head.
--
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:41:22PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> I tried disabling various CONFIG options, and I found by accident that
>> enabling IPIPE_DEBUG allows the system to run just fine.
>
> Update: It is not enough for me to enable IPIPE_DEBUG. The kernels
> t
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:41:22PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
>
> I tried disabling various CONFIG options, and I found by accident that
> enabling IPIPE_DEBUG allows the system to run just fine.
Update: It is not enough for me to enable IPIPE_DEBUG. The kernels
that boot have all of the XENO_
30 matches
Mail list logo
