Re: [Xenomai-help] AT91SAM9260 latency

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid>]

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 2:34 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@domain.hid> wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The behaviour you get may be due, for instance, to the fact that the
>>> processor goes into some sleep mode when idle and to a wake-up
>>> latency; if you run some load, there is no wake-up latency. It is hard
>>> to say anything. In order to investigate, I would instrument the
>>> kernel to trace the irq masking sections.
>> Don't we have the I-pipe tracer on this platform?
> 
> Unfortunately, the tracer on arm has too much overhead to give
> meaningful results.

Hmm. Unless the system becomes unusable while running the tracer, I
don't see the show-stopper yet. We are looking for an increase of the
latency when triggering a certain event. That should remain measurable
even if the base latency is far higher than usually.

Do you know what makes the tracer so slow? My "lowest-end" experience
with it are based on a 133 MHz Pentium where the tracer doubled the
worst-case latencies, but the results remained useful for spotting long
paths.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux