Em Segunda 13 Março 2006 08:48, você escreveu: >... > >> Do you mean that rtdm_clock_read will always read a multiple of tickval >> value? If so, I think it would be good to make it clear on its >> documentation. "Get system time" isn't enough for getting this >> information, IMHO. > >Please have a look at the two sentences of documentation I added to SVN >(didn't make it into the release).
I did. >I gave your scenario a try, and I was able to verify that >rtdm_task_busy_sleep works correctly under both timer modes. I cannot understand yet why it doesn't occur here, but I'll investigate if I have the time to. >Indeed, the >behaviour of rtdm_clock_read may have been confusing due to lacking >information, but it was also correct. I liked the note, but I would include another one: "When in periodic mode, the time resolution is limited to the tick set to the system timer" or something like. Maybe: "[If using periodic mode, note that ]The time resolution is limited by the system timer tick". Well my English is not that good, so I think you could give a better description, but I really need this note is very useful. >>> Using something different >>> (e.g. always TSC) would break applications specifying absolute times >>> derived from the return values of other skins' functions. >> >> I did not understand. I'm talking about using TSC only for these two >> functions. I can not see why shouldn't it be possible... I mean, I think >> the driver should not depend on the userspace program timer for these two >> functions. >> >>>> But the worst case is that sometimes I get "Should be near 84000: 0" >>>> which clearly is a incorrect result. >>> >>> That might be a rounding issue somewhere, as the sleep than clearly did >>> not wait at least one tick. Will have to check this when time permits. >>> >>>> After I run the latency program, the timer turns to be oneshot again and >>>> everything goes right. >>>> >>>> What can I do to solve this problem? >>> >>> Use oneshot mode in the meantime - or even longer ;). >> >> That is what I'll gonna do, but I know it is not a definite solution. >> Since I'm providing a framework, the user should decide which approach is >> better for him/her, oneshot or periodic mode. >> >>> Why do you prefer >>> periodic mode for your application? Another workaround: reduce the tick >>> interval. >> >> I have some loops in my userspace programs that a common 100us tick would >> satisfy them all. I think the overhead would be lower than using the >> aperiodic oneshot mode... I'm not pretty sure about that. But that is not >> the question. My application is just an use case of my framework (actually >> I didn't even started building it). The final user should decide what is >> the best approach for him/her, not me. So, I would prefer that the driver >> be independent from the timer source chosen by the user program. > >I see your point. But when the user decides to pick a low-precision >timer source to reduce overhead, (s)he has to live with the side-effect. >There is no such thing like "user vs. kernel" timer source - it is >always the same. Thus, also the precision of time stamping in drivers >suffers. Ok, I'll document this on my framework. Thanks for the support, Rodrigo. _______________________________________________________ Yahoo! doce lar. Faça do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core