From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>
To: xenomai-core <xenomai@xenomai.org>
Subject: [Xenomai-core] Testing LTTng: first insights
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:13:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4732C546.90602@domain.hid> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3274 bytes --]
Hi all,
testing my ltt patches over 2.6.23-i386 with latest Xenomai SVN, I found
the first noteworthy effect. First the relevant trace snippet:
...
kernel_irq_exit: 430.606359465 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL
xn_nucleus_irq_enter: 430.608893573 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { irq = 233 }
xn_nucleus_tbase_tick: 430.608894311 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { base = "master" }
xn_nucleus_irq_exit: 430.608895290 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { irq = 233 }
xn_nucleus_irq_enter: 430.608896506 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { irq = 233 }
xn_nucleus_tbase_tick: 430.608897147 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { base = "master" }
xn_nucleus_timer_expire: 430.608897986 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { timer = 0xf10e505c }
xn_nucleus_irq_exit: 430.608898959 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { irq = 233 }
kernel_timer_update_time: 430.608901508 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { jiffies =
4294998430, xtime_sec = 1194421869, xtime_nsec = 280190150, walltomonotonic_sec = -1194421446, walltomonotonic_nsec = 923956260 }
xn_nucleus_timer_start: 430.608904869 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { timer = 0xf10e505c, base = "master", value = 3989600, interval = 0, mode = 0 }
kernel_softirq_entry: 430.608906715 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SOFTIRQ { softirq_id = 1 }
kernel_timer_timeout: 430.608908237 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SOFTIRQ { pid = 7381 }
kernel_sched_try_wakeup: 430.608909293 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SOFTIRQ { pid = 7381, state = 1 }
kernel_timer_timeout: 430.608911261 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SOFTIRQ { pid = 7711 }
kernel_sched_try_wakeup: 430.608912078 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SOFTIRQ { pid = 7711, state = 1 }
kernel_timer_set: 430.608914373 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SOFTIRQ { expires = 31135, function = 0xc01fb88e, data = 0 }
kernel_softirq_exit: 430.608915649 (/usr/src/lttng-xenomai/trace4/cpu_0), 0, 0, swapper, , 0, 0x0, SYSCALL { softirq_id = 1
}
...
Xenomai is loaded at this time but not yet used. Linux runs in tickless
highres mode and obviously had programmed the host timer to fire here.
But instead of one timer IRQ (233) + its handling, we see an additional
early shot (about 3 µs too early here - the longer the timer is
programmed in advance, the larger the error gets) before the xntimer
finally expires. But at the same time, /proc/xenomai/latency reports
1000 (1 µs). So there must be more discrepancy between TSC and APIC
timebases, no? Well, nothing critical, but at least suboptimal, maybe
pointing at some hidden minor bug. Once time permits, I will check the
APIC frequency and the delay calculation on my box and compare it to
what Linux uses.
Jan
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2007-11-08 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-08 8:13 Jan Kiszka [this message]
2007-11-08 18:20 ` [Xenomai-core] Testing LTTng: first insights Jan Kiszka
2007-11-08 19:32 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-11-08 20:11 ` Jan Kiszka
2007-11-08 21:42 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-11-08 22:00 ` Jan Kiszka
2007-11-08 22:44 ` Philippe Gerum
2007-11-08 22:51 ` Jan Kiszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4732C546.90602@domain.hid \
--to=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.