M. Koehrer wrote: > ... > I measured the following runtime: > For configuring Xenomai without any option: 4.8us per step > Configuring Xenomai with --enable-x86-sep: 4.5us per step. > > I ran this experiment on a 3.2 GHz Pentium D on a server main board with > E7230 chipset. > Xenomai 2.3.1, kernel 2.6.20.4, SMP > Thus the performance here is not really excellent (as there is no need to do > a task switch.
Mind to run oprofile on this setup to see where costs primarily come from? > > I agree with all the comments that recommended to improve the design first > before > trying to improve the OS performance. > However, if there is (RT)OS, I expect it to be as fast as possible. And there it is again, the common misunderstanding: RTOSes are not GPOSes, only faster. They provide services optimised for predictable and low (in that order) worst-case performance. So adding optimisations for whatever average case must not hurt those goals significantly. And that often means your overall performance is even worse than with an GPOS. No excuses for keeping Xenomai unoptimised if it can be tuned smartly, just an explanation why we may not help in every case. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-help mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-help
