roland Tollenaar wrote: >> > I am aware of this. For the current machine I will stick to this. >> > >> >> Then don't complain. :) > Yes sir! > :) > Not complaining really, I think and I hope that the latency of 30us > average will do nicely for me. Just curious actually. > >> > to be give worse latencies than much slower machines. Are the 2 >> > interrupts causing the latency? >> >> Those two increase the latency of code in timed tasks, for sure. The >> question is if your measurement on the slower machine also included this >> scenario (timer event + 2 IRQs in a row). This definitely doesn't happen >> often, and maybe timing on the slower box makes it less likely. Or there >> is one potential IRQ source more on your fast box (e.g. due to IRQ >> sharing on the slower one). >> >> You see, RT system design on the edge (ie. when hunting a few 10 us) is >> tricky and not easily portable from box X to box Y. > > Its not possible to determine which IRQ's are responsible for this > from the trace I presume? >
echo 1 > /proc/ipipe/trace/verbose Then look at the "User Val." reported at "common_interrupt" (see also [1]). Jan [1] http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/I-pipe:Tracer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
