Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > Here, they are the last latency we get on AT91SAM9261-EK. As just now > > I haven't the board at home, I send the last result we stored. The > > prority of dbgu should be set to 6 instead of 7, but I can't assure > > it, for Xenomai. > > Hmm, hardware interrupt priorities must not impact the worst-case > latency if I-pipe acks and mask them appropriately (the worst case is > when multiple interrupts happen in a row, not at the same time). But > this statement is not based on knowledge about potential pitfalls of > this arch. Are there specialities that require this tweaking?
During the port to AT91RM9200, I observed that under ping flood, the ethernet driver interrupt was delaying the timer interrupt for unbounded period of times, this because it had a higher priority. Changing the interrupt priorities solved the issue. That said, I understand what you mean, the interrupt should be masked when acked and should no longer bother us until the I-pipe gives control to Linux to handle it. > > > first Xenomai: > > > > #insmod > > /lib/modules/184.108.40.206/kernel/drivers/xenomai/testing/xeno_timerbench.ko > > #cd /usr/xenomai/bin/ > > Which versions were you using for both tests? Do you still have the > involved .configs? > > > #./latency -t 2 -p 150 -h -H 500 Why not -p 500 ? Since RTAI was tested with a 500 us period, the same period should be use for Xenomai. I do not think this will change anything, but who knows. -- Gilles Chanteperdrix. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaiemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core