From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4F314970.5040904@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:55:28 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F312091.5080001@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4F312091.5080001@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [RFC] Port to AT91SAM9G45 List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Maxime Ripard , Nicolas Ferre , xenomai@xenomai.org On 02/07/2012 02:01 PM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hello, > > I've done the port for AT91SAM9G45 on a AT91SAM9M10G45-EK board. The > following patch have to be applied on top of the > adeos-ipipe-2.6.38.8-arm-1.18-04.patch patch. > > I also ran latency test under heavy stress using: > - hackbench to stress the scheduler > - netcat to stress the Ethernet interface and generate a lot of interrupts > - ls and dd( reading a /dev/mtdblock and writing on a tmpfs) for global stress > > I join the results I had after running each latency test during 10 hours. > > If the results I get seem the correct could you apply this patch in > Xenomai? > > Should I also submit this patch to adeos project? We will merge this patch in the adeos patch, yes. Thanks. Note that xenomai-2.6.0 provides a "dohell" command in order to generate some load, and a "xeno-test" script which runs latency under dohell load. Are the results obtained with or without the FCSE option enabled? -- Gilles.