roland Tollenaar wrote: > Hi > >> Two conclusions: >> >> - You are running your kernel as i586 without TSC support - suboptimal, >> costs you a few micros. > I am aware of this. For the current machine I will stick to this. > > >> - The reported latency perfectly matches the trace, nothing >> pathological there. The trace looks like this: Timer fired, >> measurement task woken up, two interrupts squeeze themselves between >> wakeup and time stamp acquisition. All sane. > Is it not a bit strange that a machine as fast as this one is supposed > to be give worse latencies than much slower machines. Are the 2 > interrupts causing the latency?
Yes, what puzzels me is actually the high min latency of more than 24us: == Sampling period: 100 us == Test mode: periodic user-mode task == All results in microseconds warming up... RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 100 us period, priority 99) RTH|--lat min|---lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun|----lat best|---lat worst RTD| 24.304| 35.199| 65.371| 0| 24.304| 65.371 Can the TSC cause such high delays? And what is the output of "/proc/xenomai/latency"? Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
