From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4B3A12B8.9030902@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:31:20 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4B379DFC.6000800@domain.hid> <27218735.319731261932640576.JavaMail.coremail@domain.hid> <27741962.171501262064832984.JavaMail.coremail@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <27741962.171501262064832984.JavaMail.coremail@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] test result on at91rm9200 List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: robert165 Cc: xenomai-help robert165 wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > =E5=9C=A82009-12-28=EF=BC=8C"Gilles Chanteperdrix" =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A >>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 switche= s >>(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. >> >=20 > Thanks for your introdution, and is there any document of it.=20 > The man pages just explain parametres of test scripts. I could > not understand the output of some test. No there is no document. But patches are welcome, as usual. As far as I can tell, I explained you what the tests do, there is not much more to tell. Which test's output did you not understand? >=20 >>>=20 >>> Test is under loads as followed, >>> dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/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 whic= h >>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. >=20 > The reason I procuce the load is:=20 > https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-help/2008-01/msg00023.html > How can I produce a real hard load. Are there any direction about it. The mail you are refering to is using ping -f, not ping, and talks about stressing cache by running the cache calibrator. The way we do our tests evolved a bit since then. We use netcat instead of ping -f, and the hackbench test to stress the linux scheduler. That is when FCSE is enabled in guaranteed mode. Without FCSE, we use ltp (the linux testing project) and netcat. --=20 Gilles.