Re: [Xenomai-help] test result on at91rm9200

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

robert165 wrote:
> Hi,
> I have tested xenomai on my at91rm9200 board, I used
> xenomai 2.4.10 + linux-2.6.28 + adeos-ipipe-2.6.28-arm-1.12-05.patch
> Test result seems very poor, is that correct?

Your test results are rather good for an at91rm9200 board, which is the
sure sign that you are not loading the system enough.

As I already told, you, the expected results are:
- user-space latency of 260us without FCSE
- user-space latency of 200us with FCSE
- kernel-space latency of 50us if running with unlocked context switches
(an option which is only available in the upcoming 2.5 branch).

> And is there any introduction of the tests, as their purper, their
> meanling...

The latency test computes some latencies (either user-space scheduling
latency, kernel-space scheduling latency, or kernel-space interrupt
latency, depending on the options). The switchtest tests context
switches. The switchbench measures context switching time. cyclictest
does the same thing as the latency test (only, you need to run it with
the right options to avoid running in fact with Linux timer), and in
general return similar results. Here I do not know what is the meaning
of cyclictest results you got, but if you want to know, I am afraid you
wil have to investigate, or simply ignore them.

> 
> Test is under loads as followed,
>     dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null > /dev/null &
>     ping 172.18.23.10 > /dev/null &
>     while ls; do ls; done > /dev/null &

This load is laughable. Do you find that they really stress the system,
that they make it really unresponsive? Do you really expect a test which
sends one packet every second over network to stress the system in some
way? That is what I meant when I said hammering the system real hard.

-- 
					    Gilles.