[Xenomai-core] SVN checkin #2010

[Xenomai-core] SVN checkin #2010

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 498 bytes --]

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].

Jan

[1]https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-08/msg00122.html
[2]https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-08/msg00133.html


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Philippe Gerum]

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.

> Jan
> 
> [1]https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-08/msg00122.html
> [2]https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2006-08/msg00133.html
> 
-- 
Philippe.

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

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".

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Philippe Gerum]

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.

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
> 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())
> 		    ;
> 

I mean even:

	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
                 ;

Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
handler will be called again.

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Philippe Gerum]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > 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())
> > 		    ;
> > 
> 
> I mean even:
> 
> 	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
> 		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
>                  ;
> 
> Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
> handler will be called again.
> 

Ack.

-- 
Philippe.

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2203 bytes --]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> 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())
>>> 		    ;
>>>
>> I mean even:
>>
>> 	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
>> 		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
>>                  ;
>>
>> Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
>> handler will be called again.
>>
> 
> Ack.
> 

Keep in mind that this code is now a performance regression for the
non-overflow case, specifically when xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() costs more
than just a simple CPU register access.

My previous "leave it as it is" was also due to the consideration that
we shouldn't pay too much in hotpaths for things that go wrong on
misdesigned systems.

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2345 bytes --]

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>
>>>Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>
>>>>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())
>>>>		    ;
>>>>
>>>
>>>I mean even:
>>>
>>>	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
>>>		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
>>>                 ;
>>>
>>>Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
>>>handler will be called again.
>>>
>>
>>Ack.
>>
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that this code is now a performance regression for the
> non-overflow case, specifically when xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() costs more
> than just a simple CPU register access.
> 
> My previous "leave it as it is" was also due to the consideration that
> we shouldn't pay too much in hotpaths for things that go wrong on
> misdesigned systems.

What about a greedy version like this.

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: xeno-greedy-timer-fast-forward.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch; name="xeno-greedy-timer-fast-forward.diff", Size: 1237 bytes --]

Index: ksrc/nucleus/timer.c
===================================================================
--- ksrc/nucleus/timer.c	(révision 2037)
+++ ksrc/nucleus/timer.c	(copie de travail)
@@ -184,10 +184,10 @@
 	xntimer_t *timer;
 	xnticks_t now;
 
+	now = xnarch_get_cpu_tsc();
 	while ((holder = xntimerq_head(timerq)) != NULL) {
 		timer = aplink2timer(holder);
 
-		now = xnarch_get_cpu_tsc();
 		if (xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) - nkschedlat > now)
 			/* No need to continue in aperiodic mode since timeout
 			   dates are ordered by increasing values. */
@@ -199,6 +199,7 @@
 			if (!testbits(nktbase.status, XNTBLCK)) {
 				timer->handler(timer);
 
+				now = xnarch_get_cpu_tsc();
 				if (timer->interval == XN_INFINITE ||
 				    !testbits(timer->status, XNTIMER_DEQUEUED)
 				    || testbits(timer->status, XNTIMER_KILLED))
@@ -221,8 +222,9 @@
 			   translates into precious microsecs on low-end hw. */
 			__setbits(sched->status, XNHTICK);
 
-		while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) < now)
-		    ;
+		do {
+			xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval;
+		} while (xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) < now + nkschedlat);
 		xntimer_enqueue_aperiodic(timer);
 	}
 

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Philippe Gerum]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:22 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>> 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())
> >>> 		    ;
> >>>
> >> I mean even:
> >>
> >> 	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
> >> 		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
> >>                  ;
> >>
> >> Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
> >> handler will be called again.
> >>
> > 
> > Ack.
> > 
> 
> Keep in mind that this code is now a performance regression for the
> non-overflow case, specifically when xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() costs more
> than just a simple CPU register access.
> 
> My previous "leave it as it is" was also due to the consideration that
> we shouldn't pay too much in hotpaths for things that go wrong on
> misdesigned systems.

Sure, but on the other hand, it's precisely when things tend to go wrong
that one may expect the system to be resilient to sporadic issues; IOW,
people who do provide for some contingency plan in their code upon
missed deadlines should be able to rely on the timer infrastructure not
to worsen the situation.

To address your concern, nothing prevents us from providing an
arch-specific wrapper like:

#ifdef reading_tsc_is_cheap
#define xnarch_refresh_from_tsc(oldtsc)  xnarch_get_cpu_tsc()
#else
#define xnarch_refresh_from_tsc(oldtsc)  (oldtsc)
#endif

Not that I would be particularly fond of that, mm, thing, but this would
allow to fix the bogus x86+8254 setup relic, which is likely the only
one which would cause any significant delay among the supported
archs/platforms.

> 
> Jan
> 
-- 
Philippe.

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Philippe Gerum]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:32 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > 
> >>On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>
> >>>Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>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())
> >>>>		    ;
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I mean even:
> >>>
> >>>	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
> >>>		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
> >>>                 ;
> >>>
> >>>Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
> >>>handler will be called again.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ack.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Keep in mind that this code is now a performance regression for the
> > non-overflow case, specifically when xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() costs more
> > than just a simple CPU register access.
> > 
> > My previous "leave it as it is" was also due to the consideration that
> > we shouldn't pay too much in hotpaths for things that go wrong on
> > misdesigned systems.
> 
> What about a greedy version like this.
> 

Likely the best trade-off.

-- 
Philippe.

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4009 bytes --]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>
>>>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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())
>>>>> 		    ;
>>>>>
>>>> I mean even:
>>>>
>>>> 	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
>>>> 		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
>>>>                 ;
>>>>
>>>> Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
>>>> handler will be called again.
>>>>
>>> Ack.
>>>
>>
>> Keep in mind that this code is now a performance regression for the
>> non-overflow case, specifically when xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() costs more
>> than just a simple CPU register access.
>>
>> My previous "leave it as it is" was also due to the consideration that
>> we shouldn't pay too much in hotpaths for things that go wrong on
>> misdesigned systems.
> 
> What about a greedy version like this.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Index: ksrc/nucleus/timer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- ksrc/nucleus/timer.c	(révision 2037)
> +++ ksrc/nucleus/timer.c	(copie de travail)
> @@ -184,10 +184,10 @@
>  	xntimer_t *timer;
>  	xnticks_t now;
>  
> +	now = xnarch_get_cpu_tsc();
>  	while ((holder = xntimerq_head(timerq)) != NULL) {
>  		timer = aplink2timer(holder);
>  
> -		now = xnarch_get_cpu_tsc();
>  		if (xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) - nkschedlat > now)
>  			/* No need to continue in aperiodic mode since timeout
>  			   dates are ordered by increasing values. */
> @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@
>  			if (!testbits(nktbase.status, XNTBLCK)) {
>  				timer->handler(timer);
>  
> +				now = xnarch_get_cpu_tsc();
>  				if (timer->interval == XN_INFINITE ||
>  				    !testbits(timer->status, XNTIMER_DEQUEUED)
>  				    || testbits(timer->status, XNTIMER_KILLED))
> @@ -221,8 +222,9 @@
>  			   translates into precious microsecs on low-end hw. */
>  			__setbits(sched->status, XNHTICK);
>  
> -		while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) < now)
> -		    ;
> +		do {
> +			xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval;
> +		} while (xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) < now + nkschedlat);
>  		xntimer_enqueue_aperiodic(timer);
>  	}
>  

Unless I'm overseeing some pitfall right now: looks good! Would also
avoid the #if/#else stuff Philippe reluctantly proposed and I didn't
dared to come up with on my own. :)

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Timer patches evaluation (was: SVN checkin #2010)

[Jan Kiszka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
> ...
> Not that I would be particularly fond of that, mm, thing, but this would
> allow to fix the bogus x86+8254 setup relic, which is likely the only
> one which would cause any significant delay among the supported
> archs/platforms.

BTW, could we define some concrete metrics to asses all the ongoing
changes performance-wise? We have the timerbench, we have cyclictest
(for large number of timers and for POSIX tests), we have the enhanced
runtime statistics for threads and IRQs, now we just need to create
meaningful test scenarios and run them / let them run on the different
platforms.

Interesting is, e.g., how the timer subsystem scales worst case-wise and
what piece of the cake remains for Linux under high timer load.
Moreover, there is still that tsc2ns conversion improvement to work out
- and then to evaluate...

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 250 bytes --]

[Xenomai-core] Re: Timer patches evaluation (was: SVN checkin #2010)

[Philippe Gerum]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:28 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > ...
> > Not that I would be particularly fond of that, mm, thing, but this would
> > allow to fix the bogus x86+8254 setup relic, which is likely the only
> > one which would cause any significant delay among the supported
> > archs/platforms.
> 
> BTW, could we define some concrete metrics to asses all the ongoing
> changes performance-wise? We have the timerbench, we have cyclictest
> (for large number of timers and for POSIX tests), we have the enhanced
> runtime statistics for threads and IRQs, now we just need to create
> meaningful test scenarios and run them / let them run on the different
> platforms.
> 
> Interesting is, e.g., how the timer subsystem scales worst case-wise and
> what piece of the cake remains for Linux under high timer load.
> Moreover, there is still that tsc2ns conversion improvement to work out
> - and then to evaluate...
> 

To add a piece to the puzzle, I would very much like that such metrics
would be applicable - at least some of them - to the older Xeno releases
too. A work I have in mind for some time now would be to get a chart of
the overall Xenomai performances over time (e.g. basic latency tests to
start with), release after release; something we could automate and
publish on the website. A very useful regression test, and a nice
marketing tool (well, provided we don't screw things up too often...).

> Jan
> 
-- 
Philippe.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>>Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 14:56 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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())
>>>>>		    ;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I mean even:
>>>>
>>>>	while ((xntimerh_date(&timer->aplink) += timer->interval) <
>>>>		xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() + nkschedlat)
>>>>                ;
>>>>
>>>>Because if the timer date is between now and now + nkschedlat, its
>>>>handler will be called again.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ack.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Keep in mind that this code is now a performance regression for the
>>non-overflow case, specifically when xnarch_get_cpu_tsc() costs more
>>than just a simple CPU register access.
>>
>>My previous "leave it as it is" was also due to the consideration that
>>we shouldn't pay too much in hotpaths for things that go wrong on
>>misdesigned systems.
> 
> 
> What about a greedy version like this.

This version seems to help a bit: starting latency -p 100 on ARM does
not lock up immediately, the latency test runs with some overruns for a
while, and then locks up after a while. latency -p 200 runs with no
overruns, and locks up after a while too.


-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

[Xenomai-core] Re: Timer patches evaluation

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:28 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 
>>Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>Not that I would be particularly fond of that, mm, thing, but this would
>>>allow to fix the bogus x86+8254 setup relic, which is likely the only
>>>one which would cause any significant delay among the supported
>>>archs/platforms.
>>
>>BTW, could we define some concrete metrics to asses all the ongoing
>>changes performance-wise? We have the timerbench, we have cyclictest
>>(for large number of timers and for POSIX tests), we have the enhanced
>>runtime statistics for threads and IRQs, now we just need to create
>>meaningful test scenarios and run them / let them run on the different
>>platforms.
>>
>>Interesting is, e.g., how the timer subsystem scales worst case-wise and
>>what piece of the cake remains for Linux under high timer load.
>>Moreover, there is still that tsc2ns conversion improvement to work out
>>- and then to evaluate...
>>
> 
> 
> To add a piece to the puzzle, I would very much like that such metrics
> would be applicable - at least some of them - to the older Xeno releases
> too. A work I have in mind for some time now would be to get a chart of
> the overall Xenomai performances over time (e.g. basic latency tests to
> start with), release after release; something we could automate and
> publish on the website. A very useful regression test, and a nice
> marketing tool (well, provided we don't screw things up too often...).

Maybe we could start with xeno-test and feed its output to gnuplot ?

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix

[Xenomai-core] Re: SVN checkin #2010

[Philippe Gerum]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 15:32 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:

> What about a greedy version like this.
> 

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Philippe.