Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:34:14AM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> I will try xenomai 2.5 with ipipe 2.6.35 next...
> 
> I meant to say, Xenomai 2.4 with ipipe 2.6.35, but this does not work
> because the kernel definitions have changed:
> 
>  include/asm-generic/xenomai/hal.h: In function 'rthal_get_cpufreq':
>  include/asm-generic/xenomai/hal.h:168: error: 'struct ipipe_sysinfo' has no 
> member named 'cpufreq'
>  include/asm-generic/xenomai/hal.h: In function 'rthal_get_timerfreq':
>  include/asm-generic/xenomai/hal.h:175: error: 'struct ipipe_sysinfo' has no 
> member named 'archdep'
> 
> But I think its not worth the effort to try that combination.
> 
>> Ok, please try Xenomai 2.5.6 with I-pipe for 2.6.30, in order to know if
>> the difference comes from the I-pipe of from Xenomai.
> 
> So here is what I measured. Despite all the performance enhancements
> added in Xenomai 2.5, it seems that 2.4 still performs better on my
> platform. The difference isn't huge, but it is visible.
> 
>   
> |------------+------+------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------|
>   | Kernel     |      | Xeno       | IPIPE |         |         |         |    
>       |
>   | Vers       | FCSE | Vers       | DEBUG | lat min | lat avg | lat max | 
> duration |
>   
> |------------+------+------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------|
>   | v30        | yes  | v2.4.10    | no    |   8.430 |  17.310 |  63.510 | 
> 00:02:35 |
>   | v30        | yes  | v2.5.6 [1] | no    |   7.260 |  32.745 |  80.775 | 
> 00:03:09 |
>   | v30        | yes  | v2.5.6 [2] | no    |   7.140 |  34.950 |  78.375 | 
> 00:03:21 |
>   
> |------------+------+------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------|
>   | v31        | yes  | v2.5.6     | no    |   7.215 |  34.020 |  85.350 | 
> 00:02:58 |
>   | v33        | yes  | v2.5.6     | yes   |  17.250 |  55.815 | 127.516 | 
> 00:02:00 |
>   | v35        | yes  | v2.5.6     | yes   |   7.140 |  34.200 |  84.180 | 
> 00:02:17 |
>   | v35-revert | yes  | v2.5.6     | no    |   7.350 |  29.430 |  85.185 | 
> 00:05:50 |
>   | v35        | no   | v2.5.6     | no    |   6.960 | 109.500 | 214.156 | 
> 00:09:41 |
>   
> |------------+------+------------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------|
> 
>   [1] CONFIG_IPIPE_WANT_PREEMPTIBLE_SWITCH=y
>   [2] CONFIG_IPIPE_WANT_PREEMPTIBLE_SWITCH=n

Wait a minute. You are comparing results obtained after 2 or 3, or 10
minutes of runtime? I am not sure such results are meaningful. I do my
benchmarks with the noltp_hell test:
http://git.xenomai.org/?p=mkrootfs.git;a=blob_plain;f=tests/noltp_hell;hb=HEAD

During four hours. It requires running
netcat "board" 5566 > /dev/null

After the board netcat is started.

-- 
                                                                Gilles.

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

Reply via email to