Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> >>> Right. We are approximating a fraction with another fraction. But my >>> first impression remains: I do not like the idea of making >>> xnarch_ns_to_tsc wrong be

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > Right. We are approximating a fraction with another fraction. But my > > first impression remains: I do not like the idea of making > > xnarch_ns_to_tsc wrong because xnarch_tsc_to_ns is wrong.

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: Right. We are approximating a fraction with another fraction. But my first impression remains: I do not like the idea of making xnarch_ns_to_tsc wrong because xnarch_tsc_to_ns is wrong. Well, my first impression was originally the same: If we still need llimd in the

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote:

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian Smolorz wro

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: This patch may do the trick: it uses the inverted tsc-to-ns function instead of the

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: This patch may do the trick: it uses the inverted tsc-to-ns function instead of the frequency-based on

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > > > > > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch may do the trick: it uses the inverted tsc-to-ns function > instead of the freq

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: This patch may do the trick: it uses the inverted tsc-to-ns function instead of the frequency-based one. Be warned, it is totally untested inside Xenomai, I just ran it in a user space test program. But it

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Jan Kiszka wrote: > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> This patch may do the trick: it uses the inverted tsc-to-ns function >>> instead of the frequency-based one. Be warned, it is totally untested >>> inside Xenomai, I just ran it in a user space test program. But it >>> may give

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: This patch may do the trick: it uses the inverted tsc-to-ns function instead of the frequency-based one. Be warned, it is totally untested inside Xenomai, I just ran it in a user space test program. But it may give an idea. Your patch needed two min

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sebastian Smolorz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Cornelius Köpp wrote: I talked with Sebastian Smolorz about this an

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sebastian Smolorz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> Jan Kiszka w

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sebastian Smolorz > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > >

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Sebastian Smolorz wrote: Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sebastian Smolorz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Cornelius Köpp wrote: I talked with Sebastian Smolorz about this and he builds his own

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sebastian Smolorz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >> > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> Cornelius Köpp wrote: >> I talked with Sebastian Smolorz about this and he builds his own >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Sebastian Smolorz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > >> Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> Cornelius Köpp wrote: > Hello, > I run the latency test from testsuite on several hard and software > configurations. Run

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Jan Kiszka wrote: > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Cornelius Köpp wrote: Hello, I run the latency test from testsuite on several hard and software configurations. Running on Xenomai 2.4.2, Linux 2.6.24 the results shows a "strange" behavior: In Kernel mode (-t

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >>> > Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >> >>> >> 2.3.x did not incorporate the new TSC-to-ns conversion. Maybe it is >>> >> not a PIC vs. APIC thing,

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sebastian Smolorz wrote: >> > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >> >> >> 2.3.x did not incorporate the new TSC-to-ns conversion. Maybe it is >> >> not a PIC vs. APIC thing, but rather a rounding problem of

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Cornelius Köpp wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> I run the latency test from testsuite on several hard and software > >>> configurations. Running on Xenomai 2.4.2, Linux 2.6.24

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Cornelius Köpp wrote: >>> Hello, >>> I run the latency test from testsuite on several hard and software >>> configurations. Running on Xenomai 2.4.2, Linux 2.6.24 the results >>> shows a "strange" behavior: In Kernel mode (-t1) the latencys >>> consta

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Jan Kiszka wrote: > Cornelius Köpp wrote: >> Hello, >> I run the latency test from testsuite on several hard and software >> configurations. Running on Xenomai 2.4.2, Linux 2.6.24 the results >> shows a "strange" behavior: In Kernel mode (-t1) the latencys >> constantly linear decrease. See atta

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Cornelius Köpp wrote: Hello, I run the latency test from testsuite on several hard and software configurations. Running on Xenomai 2.4.2, Linux 2.6.24 the results shows a "strange" behavior: In Kernel mode (-t1) the latencys constantly linear decrease. See attached plot 'drifting_latencys_in_k

Re: [Xenomai-core] latencys drifting into negative (Xenomai 2.4.2/2.4.3)

Hi, I don't have the answer, but just to feed my curiosity, do you know what would happen if you run the benchmarks much longer ? I can imagine that it would either stabilize on some value, or, it might start again from a large value at the beginning.. Tomas Cornelius Köpp wrote: > Hello, > I