From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4A005090.1080406@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 16:43:28 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4A003DC3.4060007@domain.hid> <1241531884.26544.369.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1241531884.26544.369.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] help with xenomai configuration List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:23 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> henning.richter@domain.hid wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I use a KUbuntu 8.10 with kernel 2.6.27.7, xenomai 2.4.6.1 and the latest >>> rtnet version. >>> I set up the EthercatMasterLibrary and send some Frames (size of ~1200 >>> byte) cylical to my Beckhoff devices. >>> Measuring the time (via rt_read_timer-function of timer.h) handing the >>> frames over to the NIC last between 5 and 10 us. (its the low_level_send) >>> Measuring the time at the application layer is takes ~250 - 350 us. So I am >>> loosing quite a lot time in between. >>> >>> Maybe there is sth. wrong with my xenomai configuration. >>> I run the 'xeno-test' (results below) but the test stop at generation load. >> Yes, xeno-test has a known issue when run without bash, and ubuntu no >> longer uses bash by default. So, try running xeno-test with bash. >> > > Gilles, we have an ongoing series of recurring issues with xeno-test > that pleads for a reshuffle. I would really like to see something > simpler in there, which may not cover all aspects that xeno-test > currently addresses, but which would at least work for all setups, and > particularly embedded ones. Yes, I am ok. These issues with xeno-test are annoying. > We should rather see xeno-test as a simple validation tool to dig out > most common latency issues due to bad kernel settings. Further > validation via long running stress tests would be better accomplished > via the LTP-based suite we use internally to validate ports, within > standalone mini-rootfs; maybe at some point we could provide those > pre-built rootfs for download, for that particular purpose. Yes, Ok too. > >> Alternatively, you can run the latency test directly. Preferably using >> the same period as the problematic one with EML. >> -- Gilles.