On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:30 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > >>Hi all - and happy new year, > >> > >>I haven't looked at all the new code yet, only the commit messages. I > >>found something similar to my fast-forward-on-timer-overrun patch in > >>#2010 and wondered if Gilles' original concerns on side effects for the > >>POSIX skin were addressed . I recalled that my own final summary on > >>this was "leave it as it is" . > >> > > > > > > The best approach is to update the POSIX skin so that it does not rely > > on the timer code to act in a sub-optimal way; that's why this patch > > found its way in. Scheduling and processing timer shots uselessly is a > > bug, not a feature in this case. > > There is some work to be done on the posix skin anyway, this will all be > at once. By the way, I tested the trunk on ARM, and I still get a lockup > when the latency period is too low. I wonder if we should not compare to > "now + nkschedlat", or even use xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() instead of "now".
You mean as below, in order to account for the time spent in the handler(s)? - while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) < now) + while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) < xnarch_get_cpu_tsc()) ; -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core