Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 15:33 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Philippe, >> >> I'm not 100% sure if this plugs all remaining wholes in the deferred >> host tick processing, but at least the most easiest reproducible one is >> cured now for me (Linux latency peak after termination of 'latency'). >> Please let me know if you see more potential issues, otherwise I would >> include this in my for-upstream queue. > > That patch is correct, please queue it. Anything that breaks the > assumption described in the following comment from > xntimer_next_local_shot() is wrong wrt tick deferral: "The host tick > deferral is cleared whenever Xenomai is about to yield control to the > host kernel". > > In short, when the code will match the comments and documentation, we > will be done with debugging.
What I meant is that with the nucleus debugging fixed, we may not even enter __xnpod_schedule often enough to handle the host tick propagation. So, maybe we should make xnpod_schedule call __xnpod_schedule if XNHTICK or XNHDEFER are set. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core