From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <534491C2.3070501@xenomai.org> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 02:18:10 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1396407588.27578.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <533BBB11.5090808@xenomai.org> <1396848843.2481.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5343BEFB.7050402@xenomai.org> <1396999856.2660.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1396999856.2660.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] OMAP L138 List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Howard Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On 04/09/2014 01:30 AM, Peter Howard wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 11:18 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 04/07/2014 07:34 AM, Peter Howard wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:24 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> On 04/02/2014 04:59 AM, Peter Howard wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm interested in running xenomai on a TI-OMAP L138 board. I found the >>>>> following thread in the archives: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2010-January/018898.html >>>>> >>>>> where someone was working on porting ipipe and xenomai to that board. >>>>> However, the thread ended with problems still unresolved, and the patch >>>>> in the thread (just the changes for ipipe) isn't in the ipipe >>>>> repository. >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone know if this work was completed or just faded into the >>>>> ether? >>>> >>>> We never merged a patch for this processor. And a lot of things changed >>>> since that time. If you are interested in porting the I-pipe patch to >>>> this processor, see: >>>> >>>> http://www.xenomai.org/index.php/I-pipe-core:ArmPorting >>>> >>> >>> Contrary to what I said last week, I'm working on a patch off the head >>> of the ipipe repo. I have built a kernel with an ipipe port and with >>> xenomai patched in. However the latency results are bad right now: >>> >>> root@arago:~# xeno latency -T 25 >>> == Sampling period: 1000 us >>> == Test mode: periodic user-mode task >>> == All results in microseconds >>> warming up... >>> RTT| 00:00:01 (periodic user-mode task, 1000 us period, priority 99) >>> RTH|----lat min|----lat avg|----lat max|-overrun|---msw|---lat best|--lat worst >>> RTD| 3.541| 8.833| 60.749| 0| 0| 3.541| 60.749 >>> RTD| 3.499| 13.583| 93.916| 0| 0| 3.499| 93.916 >>> RTD| 3.666| 88.999| 109.708| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.708 >>> RTD| 3.541| 14.958| 95.374| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.708 >>> RTD| 3.541| 9.333| 77.583| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.708 >>> RTD| 4.041| 88.416| 109.791| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.499| 8.958| 72.791| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.499| 26.041| 106.874| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.874| 82.708| 107.916| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.499| 9.083| 73.708| 0| 0| 3.499| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.333| 8.874| 62.458| 0| 0| 3.333| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.333| 8.749| 62.208| 0| 0| 3.333| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.416| 12.708| 99.416| 0| 0| 3.333| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.499| 14.249| 106.749| 0| 0| 3.333| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.541| 9.083| 76.499| 0| 0| 3.333| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.249| 8.791| 63.499| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.416| 8.999| 62.499| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.541| 26.166| 101.208| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.583| 13.624| 92.458| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.541| 8.916| 73.708| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.541| 8.999| 64.291| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTT| 00:00:22 (periodic user-mode task, 1000 us period, priority 99) >>> RTH|----lat min|----lat avg|----lat max|-overrun|---msw|---lat best|--lat worst >>> RTD| 3.499| 8.874| 61.374| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.499| 13.833| 100.749| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> RTD| 3.541| 13.083| 99.249| 0| 0| 3.249| 109.791 >>> ---|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|------|------------------------ >>> RTS| 3.249| 21.458| 109.791| 0| 0| 00:00:25/00:00:25 >>> root@arago:~# >> >> Note that if the OMAPL138 is an armv4 or armv5, you may want to enable >> the FCSE in order to reduce context switch time (and latencies). >> >> > > I enabled FCSE, and the max latency is more consistent (though the min > and average latency has climbed). How do the below figures look? Without any load? It is meaningless. -- Gilles.