Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Richard Cochran wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> To help debugging this, please run the kernel which crashes with I-pipe >>>> enabled, without Xenomai, and the attached test, in order to see if the >>>> tsc behaves correctly. >>> Getting back to this, I did try the test program with ipipe 2.6.35 but >>> without xenomai. It seems to run fine. But I only ran it for a few >>> minutes. The exact version was ipipe-2.6.35.9-arm-1.18-01 plus endian >>> fix, and I attached the config. >>> >>> I enabled the *third* #if-elif-else case thinking it to be the correct >>> one to test. (see below) >>> (...) >> Yes, that was the correct thing to do. I assumed that when you enabled >> Xenomai, the system was running, and that it frozen when you started a >> Xenomai application. Which is not your case at all. >>> So, assuming I got that right, then the new tsc code passes the test. >>> Next I'll try to get some better information about the freeze. Any >>> other ideas? >> We have only one commit to inspect, that should not be so hard. Next >> thing to try is to see what changed in the other parts of this commit. >> We should look at the interrupt handler, ipipe_mach_set_dec, >> ipipe_mach_release_timer to see what change had such an effect. I will >> try to reorder the functions to have a more readable diff. You can also >> check if we pass the rthal_calibrate_timer function. > > Hi Richard, > > I am currently running some benchmarks on an AT91SAM9263 board, to see > whether we have some performance regression.
The FCSE support in the I-pipe patch for Linux 2.6.30 needs this additional patch: http://git.xenomai.org/?p=ipipe-gch.git;a=commit;h=50e97478bd64cc28937179989d17ebc1930829b4 Otherwise you get segmentation faults when exceeding the 95 processes limit. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
