Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jim Cromie wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>>> Ive been running an ipipe kernel as the default since shortly after >>>> 1/7. >>>> Since then, Ive had a couple of freezes on boot, >>>> and sometimes bash's auto-complete takes longer to complete, >>> >>> >>> Eh? Maybe the CONFIG_PCI_MSI syndrom again? >> >> >> Um, does this tell you anything ? >> >> $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep PCI_MSI >> # CONFIG_PCI_MSI is not set >> >> I noticed the slow completion when doing some heavy disk stuff, >> lndir on a kernel tree, and probably diff -r on 2 kernel trees, >> so the laptop was pretty busy. >> >> >>>> >>>> This was run on a pentium-M laptop, >>>> with cpu-clock running at 600 MHz, (capable of 1.7 GHz) >>>> I presume this might explain the negative latancies. >>>> Im aware this is un-supported .. >>>> >>> >>> The negative values are just there because even at 600Mhz, the timing >>> anticipation applied by the nucleus to compensate for the intrinsic >>> latency of the box is too high; i.e. the nucleus performs a bit too >>> well latency-wise, so the anticipated timer ticks end up being a bit >>> early on schedule. IOW, all is fine. Given the figures above, you >>> could probably reduce the anticipation factor by setting the >>> CONFIG_XENO_HW_SCHED_LATENCY (Machine menu) parameter to, say, 2500 >>> nanoseconds (the default null value tells the nucleus to use the >>> pre-calibrated value, which might be higher than this for your setup). >>> >> Ok. with latencies == 0, calibration happens at runtime, so it would >> reflect the current workload (and with cpufreq on) also would reflect >> the current clock frequency, correct ? >> > > With latency == 0, a pre-calibrated latency value is extracted from > asm-i386/calibration.h. > >> >>> Btw, I'm not sure if you enabled the local APIC in your kernel >>> config; if you did not, you should: there is no reason to keep using >>> the braindamage 8254 PIT when a LAPIC is available with your CPU. >>> >> Ok, now running this. >> >> zcat /proc/config.gz | grep APIC >> CONFIG_X86_GOOD_APIC=y >> CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC=y >> CONFIG_X86_UP_IOAPIC=y >> CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC=y >> CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC=y >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] latency]$ sudo ./run -- -T60 -s -t1 >> Password: >> * >> * >> * Type ^C to stop this application. >> * >> * >> == Sampling period: 100 us >> == Test mode: in-kernel periodic task >> warming up... >> RTT| 00:00:05 (in-kernel periodic task, 100 us period) >> RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat >> best|---lat worst >> RTD| -2165| 127216| 1399358| 7582| -2165| >> 1399358 > > ACPI is still on, it seems. ACPI, and PM must be off. They are > responsible for hw-generated latencies. Additionally, you may want to > switch on the "SMI disable" option from the Xeno config, to see if > things improve.
If you are on a Pentium-M system, SMI disable is a must. > >> RTD| -2188| -205817| 1403255| 16431| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2178| -207605| 1399828| 25271| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2186| -208602| 1402253| 34096| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2163| -206835| 1399144| 42943| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2175| -206848| 1401346| 51785| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2184| -210270| 1396823| 60621| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2167| -208781| 1399323| 69453| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2169| -211121| 1397365| 78267| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2173| -210119| 1398349| 87084| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2168| -208425| 1400764| 95922| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2173| 211271| 1397470| 104678| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2170| -208130| 1399794| 113508| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2161| -208400| 1397968| 122334| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2162| -211225| 1397581| 131139| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2175| -210500| 1397274| 139951| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2179| -207530| 1396890| 148781| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2178| -207890| 1399275| 157611| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2172| -207750| 1397386| 166432| -2188| >> 1403255 >> RTD| -2175| -206057| 1399763| 175260| -2188| >> 1403255 >> HSH|--param|--samples-|--average--|---stddev-- >> HSS| min| 20| 2.000| 0.000 >> HSS| avg| 205060| 90.399| 25.538 >> HSS| max| 20| 99.000| 0.000 >> ---|------------|------------|------------|--------|------------------------- >> >> RTS| -2188| -170670| 1403255| 175260| 00:01:00/00:01:00 >> >> >> Obviously, the numbers dont look so good. >> The test duration comments still apply. >> >>> You should disable the ACPI support if enabled, and especially >>> everything related to the CPUfreq scaling and power suspend. >>> >> Given that Im not really developing any RT code, >> and I like the laptop quiet and cool, Im inclined to keep >> the CPUfreq scaling on, at least for my everyday kernel. >> How much does CPUfreq invalidate results I might send (periodically) >> > > Well, it basically totally wrecks the timing... > ...and may also add further latencies with the system has to speed up again. Anyway, there might be use-cases where power consumption is - besides latency - also an important issue. I'm just thinking of our smaller mobile robots where the power demand of the drives and the controller are not that far apart as on the larger platforms. What about other time sources on x86? Which systems already have HPET these days, and does this source not suffer from frequency scaling? I once read that HPET is quite easy to program, is this true? IOW, would it be worth considering to add this to the HAL? Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
