On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 21:33 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-07-29 at 16:20 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> :|func 6 xnintr_clock_handler (__ipipe_dispatch_wired) > >>>> :|func 6 xnintr_irq_handler (xnintr_clock_handler) > >>>> :|func 7 xnpod_announce_tick (xnintr_irq_handler) > >>>> :|func 8+ xntimer_do_tick_aperiodic (xnpod_announce_tick) > >>>> :|func 9 xnthread_periodic_handler (xntimer_do_tick_aperiodic) > >>>> :|func 10 xnpod_resume_thread (xnthread_periodic_handler) > >>>> :|[21559] 11+ xnpod_resume_thread (xnthread_periodic_handler) > >>>> :|func 13+ xnthread_periodic_handler (xntimer_do_tick_aperiodic) > >> ... > >> > >>>> :|func 363+ xnthread_periodic_handler (xntimer_do_tick_aperiodic) > >> That are a lot of overruns. Haven't counted, but it should be one > >> xnthread_periodic_handler per missed 100 us period (20000 / 100 = 200!). > >> [BTW, I think we should handle even this failure scenario without > >> looping. > > > > We need to loop in the aperiodic handler in order to catch timers that > > could have elapsed while processing the current tick. However, > > No, that was not what I meant. I know that we need the timer loop. But I > was thinking of something like this for the tick handler's error path: > > if (unlikely((timer.date += timer.interval) < now)) > timer.date = now + timer.interval - > (now - timer.date) % timer.interval; > > > xnpod_wait_thread_period() - over which rt_task_wait_period() is based - > > does not loop, but rather computes the actual count of overruns by > > substracting the current time from the deadline. > > ...but by looping for some scenarios instead of dividing for all. Why > optimising the slow path here?
Division is utterly expensive and having a jitter that would not fit in 32bit is seldom (and the definitive sign of serious brokenness anyway), so this is actually the fast error path which gets optimized. > > > > > Which brings us an interesting question: why does the aperiodic handler > > loop frenetically in the first place? I would be pretty interested in > > checking the TSC values returned by xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() while spinning > > inside this deadly loop... > > You can already read those TSCs: each trace point got recorded with the > current TSC value, fresh from the hardware. > I'd like to explain why we don't we see any other routines than xnthread_aperiodic_handler called from xntimer_do_tick_aperiodic in the call frame? Even in case of massive jittery (e.g. > 300 us late) in one shot, we should not spin in this code, due to the resync done in xnpod_wait_thread_timeout - assuming we only have a single outstanding timer (+ the host tick, but this should not be an issue). > I rather think, also when looking at Julien's second trace, that we have > some issue with X in user-space here, probably in combination with weird > VIA hardware stalling IRQ delivery for a "few" microseconds. Let's see > if the irqbench gives similar results. > The problem is that I can reproduce X-related jittery (> 2 ms in a row) on one of my test boxen when dragging windows over the screen, without triggering the NMI watchdog set to 100 us (and guess what, the chipset in question is from VIA). > Jan > -- Philippe. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
