From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:31:33 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix Message-ID: <20150713203133.GA2022@hermes.click-hack.org> References: <20150710104957.GT20176@hermes.click-hack.org> <55A3C023.5070000@sigmatek.at> <20150713140208.GC1554@hermes.click-hack.org> <55A3D1B2.50905@sigmatek.at> <55A3EE26.5070802@sigmatek.at> <7413ead94cb8c4f3a91d1288a27103c9.squirrel@sourcetrek.com> <55A3F4B3.1090908@sigmatek.at> <20150713195856.GA1552@hermes.click-hack.org> <55A41E26.9020903@sigmatek.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55A41E26.9020903@sigmatek.at> Subject: Re: [Xenomai] usage of rtdm_task_sleep_abs List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Johann Obermayr Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:23:02PM +0200, Johann Obermayr wrote: > Am 13.07.2015 um 21:58 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > >On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:26:11PM +0200, Johann Obermayr wrote: > >>Am 13.07.2015 um 19:21 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > >>>Johann Obermayr wrote: > >>>>Am 13.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > >>>>>Johann Obermayr wrote: > >>>>>>without your application, there are no large latencies. > >>>>>>with your application see frozen.txt (with latency -f) > >>>>>I am confused. You mean "our application", not "your application", > >>>>>right? > >>>>>lrtdrv_monitoring_irq is not part of the code delivered by the Xenomai > >>>>>project. > >>>>> > >>>>>>We see the problem only if one task (background) is accessing the SRAM > >>>>>>on your PCI-Card. if we stop this task, all is ok. > >>>>>Again: the Xenomai project does not make PCI-card. So, you probably mean > >>>>>"our PCI-Card"? > >>>>yes, our PCI-Card. (sorry for my bad english) > >>>>>>So we have a higher prior task (pci-locker), that interrupt the > >>>>>>background task, so that the pci bus get free. > >>>>>I am not sure I understand your explanations. But the trace is pretty > >>>>>clear: > >>>>> > >>>>>At time -658 the timer is programmed to tick at -561. > >>>>> > >>>>>>:| # event tick@-561 -658 0.112 xntimer_next_local_shot+0xca > >>>>>>:| + func -651 0.145 lrtdrv_monitoring_irq+0x4 > >>>>>>[sigmatek_lrt] (irq_hook_handler+0x32 [sigmatek_lrt]) > >>>>>>:| + end 0x000000ef -651! 641.640 apic_timer_interrupt+0x52 > >>>>>>(<102d0254>) > >>>>>But at that point the tick is delayed for 600us. And according to the > >>>>>trace, the last traced function called before that delay is the function > >>>>> > >>>>>ltdrv_monitoring_irq. > >>>>> > >>>>>So, I do not know what this irq is doing, but I would suggest having a > >>>>>close look at it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>hello, > >>>> > >>>>i have disable our lrtdrv_monitoring_irq. > >>>>Only have this callback > >>>>static void irq_hook_handler(unsigned int irq, unsigned int state) > >>>>{ > >>>> if (fpga_interrupt == irq && state == 0x01) > >>>> { > >>>> time_fpga_irq = rt_timer_tsc(); > >>>> } > >>>>} > >>>>same latency > >>>Maybe, but your trace does not contain enough points to see it. The trace > >>>should at least contain the "tick@" event which gets missed, so that we > >>>can see how much the interrupt is delayed, and what was happening at the > >>>time. > >>> > >>> > >>Hi, > >> > >>Sorry, here with more points. > >Ok, what is irq_hook_handler ? > > > Ok. on out PCI Card there is a FPGA. This FPGA generate am Interrupt to the > PC. But internal in the FPGA there > are different IRQ sources. One of them is our Tick. > So we measure the time from __ipipe_handle_irq to the our rtdm_irq_request > handler. > In our handler we can check, if it our Tick and than we can calc the correct > time to start our pci_locker task 50us before next Tick-irq. > > It's a callback function from some irq function ipipe_raise_irq, > __ipipe_do_IRQ, __ipipe_handle_irq > for our own tracing and it save the fpga irq time. > Only __ipipe_handle_irq have state 0x01 (begin irq) & state 0x02 at the end > of the function. I see two weird things in your traces: - irq_hook_handler which is taking a lot of time - or some APIC related functions taking a lot of time. Are you sure your system is not one of those which disable the APIC during idle period. Is your system UP or SMP? -- Gilles. https://click-hack.org