Dmitry Adamushko wrote:

On 01/03/06, *Philippe Gerum* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

    Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
     > On 01/03/06, *Philippe Gerum* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
     > wrote:
     >      The other option I've described for
     >     dealing with overruns in rt_task_wait_period would be as follows:
     >     - save the count of overruns
     >     - clear the count of overruns  /* i.e. "purge" */
     >     - return both the saved count and -ETIMEDOUT to the user.
     >     This way, rt_task_wait_period would return only once with an
     >     status, telling
     >     the user about the exact count of pending overruns in the
    same time.
     > I definitely agree with you here.
     > IMHO, there is no point in calling rt_task_wait_period() a few
     > times in a row just to clean up the "poverrun" counter
     > (if there were a few overruns) when the whole may be reported at
     > This former way just gives unnecessary overhead.

    My concern is that some recovery procedure might require to get the
    exact number
    of pending overruns to operate properly in order to catch up with
    the missing
    expiries, and there is no way to get this information out of the
    current API (!).
    Even calling rt_task_wait_period in loop and testing for -ETIMEDOUT
    is unusable,
    since well, we would obviously get blocked when the overrun count
    drops to zero,
    which is not what we want in order to be able to run the recovery
    procedure asap.

All in all, I would vote for changing the current rt_task_wait_period() interface.

I'm convinced now that this is the way to go too, because the current interface is not only limited, but broken, since it does not allow to tell the recovery procedure the exact count of pending overruns.

This is a widely used routine unfortunately, so the change won't go unnoticed, but on the other hand, v2.1 is likely the last opportunity we have to clean the native API from legacy issues, without resorting to using weird hacks aimed at keeping the binary and source compatibilities, many of which end up polluting the API they are supposed to protect.

     > Actually, there is a kind of application that must not rely on
     > the "poverrun" counter, the klatency/latency utility and alike.
     > They are run normally (at least at the very first time) in the
     > environment
     > where SMI or something similar - that may prevent a CPU from
    handling normal
     > interrupts for quite a long time - make occur happily.
     > As the "poeverrun" counting is dependent on the timer interrupt,
     > it becomes irrelevant.
     > Something like
     > overruns = (real_time_of_wakeup - desired_time_of_wakeup) /
    period (*)
     > should be rather used there (of course, the timing source must not be
     > interrupt-dependent).

    Ah! you know what, I'm pretty sure that one of your very first
    public posts on the
    RTAI/fusion mailing list at that time, was exactely about this issue

Good memory indeed; so it's too earlier for you to get retired :o)

"G3" still means "inspired guitar masters" to me, and not some obscure powerpc thingy, so I guess that I've not been spoiled by IT yet. Way too early to retire then.



Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko



Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to