On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > 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 [1]. I recalled that my own final summary on
> >>>>this was "leave it as it is" [2].
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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())
> >                 ;
> > 
> 
> I mean even:
> 
>       while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
>               xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
>                  ;
> 
> Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
> handler will be called again.
> 

Ack.

-- 
Philippe.



_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to