[Xenomai] I-pipe patches for x86

[Xenomai] I-pipe patches for x86

[Doug Brunner]

Hi all,

I'm in the midst of upgrading the software stack for an embedded 
controller based on a WinSystems PPM-LX800 (was previously Xeno 2.6.1 
and Linux 3.2). I see there are I-pipe patches out for 3.10.32 and 3.14, 
as well as the 3.8.13 included with Xenomai 2.6.3. This is going in a 
road vehicle and so the priority is on stability over the security 
offered by the newer Linux (it should only rarely be connected to a 
network and never to the Internet.) What's your impression of the 
stability of the newer versions vs. 3.8?

Thanks,
     Doug Brunner

Re: [Xenomai] I-pipe patches for x86

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On 08/18/2014 12:19 AM, Doug Brunner wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm in the midst of upgrading the software stack for an embedded 
> controller based on a WinSystems PPM-LX800 (was previously Xeno 2.6.1 
> and Linux 3.2). I see there are I-pipe patches out for 3.10.32 and 3.14, 
> as well as the 3.8.13 included with Xenomai 2.6.3. This is going in a 
> road vehicle and so the priority is on stability over the security 
> offered by the newer Linux (it should only rarely be connected to a 
> network and never to the Internet.) What's your impression of the 
> stability of the newer versions vs. 3.8?
> 
> Thanks,
>      Doug Brunner

Hi Doug,

as maintainers, we try and test each version, and fix the issues we find
until delivery. So, from our point of view, they are all equally stable,
and it is difficult to answer your question. One detail however: you
will not be able to run Xenomai 2.6.3 on Linux 3.14, you will need the
upcoming Xenomai 2.6.4 for that. Xenomai 2.6.4 is expected to be
delivered in the next few weeks.

Regards.

-- 
                                                                Gilles.

Re: [Xenomai] I-pipe patches for x86

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On 08/18/2014 12:19 AM, Doug Brunner wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm in the midst of upgrading the software stack for an embedded 
> controller based on a WinSystems PPM-LX800 (was previously Xeno 2.6.1 
> and Linux 3.2). I see there are I-pipe patches out for 3.10.32 and 3.14, 
> as well as the 3.8.13 included with Xenomai 2.6.3. This is going in a 
> road vehicle and so the priority is on stability over the security 
> offered by the newer Linux (it should only rarely be connected to a 
> network and never to the Internet.) What's your impression of the 
> stability of the newer versions vs. 3.8?

You can find the results of the benchmark of all the I-pipe versions
since 3.2 on geode on the web site:

http://xenomai.org/category/benchmark/

Note that I found out when testing version 3.4.6, that SMI effects could
be reduced on Geode by using the parameter pata_cs5536.msr=1 on the
kernel command line.

-- 
                                                                Gilles.

Re: [Xenomai] I-pipe patches for x86

[Doug Brunner]

On 08/18/2014 04:27 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 12:19 AM, Doug Brunner wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm in the midst of upgrading the software stack for an embedded
>> controller based on a WinSystems PPM-LX800 (was previously Xeno 2.6.1
>> and Linux 3.2). I see there are I-pipe patches out for 3.10.32 and 3.14,
>> as well as the 3.8.13 included with Xenomai 2.6.3. This is going in a
>> road vehicle and so the priority is on stability over the security
>> offered by the newer Linux (it should only rarely be connected to a
>> network and never to the Internet.) What's your impression of the
>> stability of the newer versions vs. 3.8?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>       Doug Brunner
> Hi Doug,
>
> as maintainers, we try and test each version, and fix the issues we find
> until delivery. So, from our point of view, they are all equally stable,
> and it is difficult to answer your question. One detail however: you
> will not be able to run Xenomai 2.6.3 on Linux 3.14, you will need the
> upcoming Xenomai 2.6.4 for that. Xenomai 2.6.4 is expected to be
> delivered in the next few weeks.
>
> Regards.
>
Thanks Gilles, sounds like it will be worth waiting for 2.6.4 before 
making another transition. From the maintainers' perspective I was 
thinking mostly of "did 3.10/3.14 seem more troublesome/likely to break 
than 3.8 when you were writing and testing it?". I take it from your 
reply that it didn't, and I didn't see any reports of issues in the list 
archives...so when 2.6.4 is ready I will give it and 3.14 a go.

I also saw your tip on the CS5536 boot param and the benchmark results 
in your other email. Thanks for that, seems to work fine on my system.

     --Doug Brunner