From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5346895B.6080401@xenomai.org> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:06:51 +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> <53449244.8040502@xenomai.org> <1397003664.2660.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1397017658.2660.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <534534FD.5090805@xenomai.org> <1397113300.2720.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1397113300.2720.5.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 04/10/2014 09:01 AM, Peter Howard wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 13:54 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 04/09/2014 06:27 AM, Peter Howard wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 10:34 +1000, Peter Howard wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 02:20 +0200, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise, it is hard to say whether there is an issue or not. It is not >>>>> uncommon for armv4 or armv5 to have high latencies like this. >>>>> On what core is this processor based, running at what frequency? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's an AMR926EJ-S r5. Datasheet claims 375MHz, U-boot claims 300MHz. >>>> >>>> Load test to follow. >>>> >>> >>> OK, this run was done with LTP running on the board (runltplite.sh), >>> with cpu utilization between 90% and 100% >> >> You have to run the latency test while ltp is running, and run this for >> a few hours (ltp runs a few hours anyway). >> >> We provide the xeno-test script to do this (and dohell to generate >> load). >> >> See: >> http://www.xenomai.org/documentation/xenomai-2.6/html/xeno-test/index.html >> http://www.xenomai.org/documentation/xenomai-2.6/html/dohell/index.html >> > > That's proving to be a bit challenging. Giving dohell ltp is causing > more kernel panics - usually a SIGSEGV to init. Now I'm aware from your > previous thread on the OMAP-L138 that ltp doesn't run cleanly on low-end > arm chips as-is, but I'm guessing kernel panics wasn't the failure mode > you were seeing. (running ltp by itself also gives a different kernel > panic after about 15-20 minutes) So I need to look into that more. > > I also need to try the ltp build on the stock Ti-supplied system to make > sure there's not a pre-existing problem lurking in there; I should do > that tomorrow. The thing is, if you enabled FCSE in guaranteed mode, it does not really make sense to run LTP: most tests will fail because of the processes number limit. In that case you should use the -b option, and pass the path to hackbench only. > > FWIW just running xeno-test with no arguments finishes cleanly after > running for 10 minutes or so. > > Is it worth putting up the diff to the ipipe tree at this stage for > people to look over? If you have random segfault, then something is still wrong. Have you tried enabling I-pipe debugging options? The non-working I-pipe tracer with stack unwinding is not normal either, what version of the kernel are you using? -- Gilles.