From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <459A5E92.6030504@domain.hid> References: <459A31E3.40807@domain.hid> <1167744149.30347.2.camel@domain.hid> <459A5E92.6030504@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:49:29 +0100 Message-Id: <1167745769.30347.6.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010 Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Jan Kiszka , xenomai-core On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:30 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 11:20 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > >>Hi all - and happy new year, > >> > >>I haven't looked at all the new code yet, only the commit messages. I > >>found something similar to my fast-forward-on-timer-overrun patch in > >>#2010 and wondered if Gilles' original concerns on side effects for the > >>POSIX skin were addressed [1]. I recalled that my own final summary on > >>this was "leave it as it is" [2]. > >> > > > > > > The best approach is to update the POSIX skin so that it does not rely > > on the timer code to act in a sub-optimal way; that's why this patch > > found its way in. Scheduling and processing timer shots uselessly is a > > bug, not a feature in this case. > > There is some work to be done on the posix skin anyway, this will all be > at once. By the way, I tested the trunk on ARM, and I still get a lockup > when the latency period is too low. I wonder if we should not compare to > "now + nkschedlat", or even use xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() instead of "now". You mean as below, in order to account for the time spent in the handler(s)? - while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) < now) + while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) < xnarch_get_cpu_tsc()) ; -- Philippe.