From: "M. Koehrer" <mathias_koehrer@domain.hid>
To: jan.kiszka@domain.hid, mathias_koehrer@domain.hid
Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org, rtnet-users@domain.hid
Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] [RTnet-users] Xenomai/rtnet vs. 2.6.21 realtime preempt patch
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:32:39 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5626198.1178177559304.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46360605.4020901@domain.hid>
Hi Jan,
> > I have tried the latest 2.6.21 kernel + Ingo Molnar's realtime preempt
> patch
> > (see: http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RT_PREEMPT_HOWTO)
> >
> > And I am really amazed about the results.
> > On my Pentium 4D (dual core) system, 3.2 GHz, I ran the cyclictest
> > application (which is something similar to the "latency" application of
> Xenomai/RTAI)
> > and I get values below 15 microseconds on my PC (for a single task running
> with 200 microseconds).
> >
....
> >
> > Currently, my application is working quite nice using Xenomai/rtnet
> however there are some
> > drawbacks like the issue with limited IRQs: Sharing of IRQs between
> Ethernet-Drivers of rtnet
> > and non-realtime drivers is not possible (at least I did not manage
> that...).
> > A smooth usage of real time features from a "standard" kernel could help
> here!
>
> Nope, not really. As I think to have explained earlier, IRQ sharing
> between drivers that are designed for real-time and others that are not
> will never work deterministically. That has nothing to do with the
> design of your RTOS underneath. Actually, the same issue once came up
> for -rt over some ARM board that did poor IRQ line sharing as well.
>
> Jan
I agree, the best is actually to have separate IRQs for real time and non real time drivers.
However, reality shows me, that this is very hard to get with standard PCs.
I can plug in one or two PCI boards to have an unique IRQ for them. However, if I want
to use more PCI boards IRQ sharing cannot be avoided.
As with the preempt patch, the duration of non-realtime IRQ routines seems to be fairly short.
>From this, I think it is at least an option to share IRQs between real time and non real time drivers
even if the IRQ routine of the non real time driver may lead to a delay of the real time IRQ routine.
It is a question of acceptable delays for the IRQs.
Regards
Mathias
--
Mathias Koehrer
mathias_koehrer@domain.hid
Viel oder wenig? Schnell oder langsam? Unbegrenzt surfen + telefonieren
ohne Zeit- und Volumenbegrenzung? DAS TOP ANGEBOT JETZT bei Arcor: günstig
und schnell mit DSL - das All-Inclusive-Paket für clevere Doppel-Sparer,
nur 39,85 inkl. DSL- und ISDN-Grundgebühr!
http://www.arcor.de/rd/emf-dsl-2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-03 7:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-30 14:31 [Xenomai-help] Xenomai/rtnet vs. 2.6.21 realtime preempt patch M. Koehrer
2007-04-30 15:06 ` [Xenomai-help] [RTnet-users] " Jan Kiszka
2007-05-03 7:32 ` M. Koehrer [this message]
2007-05-03 17:18 ` Jan Kiszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5626198.1178177559304.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid \
--to=mathias_koehrer@domain.hid \
--cc=jan.kiszka@domain.hid \
--cc=rtnet-users@domain.hid \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.