From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philippe Gerum In-Reply-To: <470C6D48.3070109@domain.hid> References: <305035a40710091019n77e1a453gd0d349dc1eebc15d@domain.hid> <470BC537.8010200@domain.hid> <305035a40710091207j4038c62s5fb81903ce843910@domain.hid> <305035a40710091207l185a8fcm8baf715e0a0ef2b3@domain.hid> <470BDA72.8070908@domain.hid> <18187.63871.791885.643837@domain.hid> <470C6D48.3070109@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:45:28 +0200 Message-Id: <1192005928.22917.160.camel@domain.hid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Philippe Gerum Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: RTAI and Xenomai latency in kernel mode on AT91SAM9261-EK 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: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 08:12 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > Again, the priority should not be the issue. The issue is likely that a > > > pending or just being handled non-RT IRQ can stall some RT IRQ at > > > hardware level. That must not happen. I-pipe rather has to log, > > > acknowledge, and possibly mask that line quickly so that RT IRQs can be > > > delivered again. > > > > Thinking a bit more about my ethernet vs timer issue. If, when an > > ethernet interrupt is pending, adeos is not aware that there is also a > > timer interrupt pending, it will call the ethernet interrupt handler > > immediately then unmask the interrupt. So, Adeos will never have a > > chance to handle the timer interrupt before another ethernet interrupt > > is handled. Ergo, giving the timer interrupt the highest priority is > > what must be done. > > No. Adeos will first start to dispatch the Ethernet IRQ. It will > ack&mask it and then re-enable the IRQ delivery before calling into the > handler. Only if the ethernet interrupt is not a real-time event. > At this point the hardware can report the timer IRQ, and Adeos > will immediately start to deliver that one instead. > > With IRQ hardware priorities, you only optimise the case when both > interrupts are pending in the hardware at the same time. The worst-case > remains that the Ethernet IRQ comes first, Adeos starts to handle it, > and _then_ the timer IRQ arrives. This is something the hardware can in > no way avoid (without looking into the future...). > When the processor has a notion of internal priority level which it does inherit from the level of the event it currently processes, the above assumption is wrong. In such a case, the next interrupt to be serviced would be equivalent to pending_IRQ_mask & CPU_interrupt_mask & processor_level, i.e. multiple high priority interrupts would be processed before a low priority one is eventually triggered. So in that case, Gilles's assertion does make a lot of sense. > Jan > > _______________________________________________ > Xenomai-core mailing list > Xenomai-core@domain.hid > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core -- Philippe.