M. Koehrer wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I am currently checking XENOMAI (V2.2.3 on a 2.6.17.7 kernel P4) to see if I > can use it > as replacement for a RTAI 3.3-cv application. > The first thing I did was to run the latency test in the the xenomai's > testsuite directory. > The results of the worst time latency are really ugly - about 40µs! > On the very same PC I got a value of about 5µs using RTAI 3.3-cv running the > RTAI's > user/latency test.
I'm _very_ sceptical about your 5 us. Could you elaborate on how you load your box and how long those tests ran? See also TROUBLESHOOTING in the Xenomai source tree on appropriate load for triggering the worst case. The worst difference I once measured on a Pentium 133 MHz was 10% better maximum latency for a timed task under RTAI. IIRC, it took longer for RTAI to expose this than for Xenomai. > > My question is now: Why can there be such a huge difference between the two > systems on the very same > hardware?? > Is there a way to improve this value? You may what to have a look at the I-pipe tracer to analyse the worst case - also under RTAI (requires a bit hacking to obtain the same freezing feature with its latency test). It is helpful to see what scenario both system faced when running on the maximum delay. > > The RTAI system uses a 2.4.33 kernel, the XENOMAI uses the 2.6.17.7 kernel. > Could this > be an issue? Nope, the latency differences between 2.4 and 2.6 are insignificant on x86 last time I checked. > > Thanks for any feedback on that issue! > > Mathias > > Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
