From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4784BCDD.9000404@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:23:57 +0100 From: Wolfgang Grandegger MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <47827A59.1050806@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] Xenomai latency tests on MPC8xx List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: fabien Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org fabien wrote: > Hello, first thank for your advices Wolfgang. > > 2008/1/7, Wolfgang Grandegger : >> fabien wrote: >>> Here, there is some xenomai tests on a MPC855T, could you comment >>> these results please ? >>> Are they correct ? [...deletions...] > First, it's nice to see that all tests passed without oops, system hang >> or large latency figures. Your results are reasonable for your test >> scenario. I remember similar results on my TQM860L module under Linux >> 2.4.25. Your target is a very low-end PowerPC system with little cache >> (min latency is rather close to max latency) and it's already a pain to >> run Linux 2.6 on it. But you should apply more load and run the test >> much longer to get realistic worst case latency figures, which are >> likely higher then the values listed above. I usually use "while ls; do >> ls; done" in a telnet window, "ping -f " and the cache >> calibrator to produce high load. And do not forget to add "cat >> /proc/xenomai/latency" to the above figures. >> >> Wolfgang, >> >> > > I did the same test with : > a ping -f > telnet session : while ls; do ls; done > and a dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null > > And i got the following results : > ./latency -t0 -p1000 -T500 > RTS| 86.400| 131.200| 229.440| 0| 00:08:21/00:08:20 > > # cat /proc/xenomai/latency > 4160 > > ./latency -t1 -p1000 -T500 > RTS| 63.040| 92.998| 180.480| 0| 00:08:21/00:08:20 > > ./latency -t2 -p1000 -T500 > RTS| 20.480| 36.130| 123.200| 0| 00:08:21/00:08:20 > > # ./cyclictest -t5 -l 30000 -q > T: 0 ( 563) P:99 I: 1000 C: 30000 Min: 97 Act: 142 Avg: > 150 Max: 216 > T: 1 ( 564) P:98 I: 1500 C: 30000 Min: 95 Act: 142 Avg: > 228 Max: 574 > T: 2 ( 565) P:97 I: 2000 C: 30000 Min: 102 Act: 141 Avg: > 335 Max: 776 > T: 3 ( 566) P:96 I: 2500 C: 30000 Min: 96 Act: 138 Avg: > 303 Max: 964 > T: 4 ( 567) P:95 I: 3000 C: 30000 Min: 123 Act: 143 Avg: > 481 Max: 1458 > > # ./switchbench -n100000 -p 1000 > == Sampling period: 1000 us > == Do not interrupt this program > RTH| lat min| lat avg| lat max| lost > RTD| 140.480| 176.000| 276.480| 0 > > # ./switchtest -T30 -n > == Threads: sleeper-0 rtk-1 rtk-2 rtup-3 rtup-4 rtus-5 rtus-6 rtuo-7 rtuo-8 > RTT| 00:00:03 > RTH|ctx switches|-------total > RTD| 666| 666 > RTD| 3| 669 > RTD| 15| 684 > RTD| 12| 696 > > I think the tests are correct ? Yes, and the results are reasonable, apart from the last one... > exept for the latter that is catastrophic .... just when i applied the ping -f > What do you think about this results ? ... likely because the system is overloaded with 30 tasks. Wolfgang.