linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>
To: Armin Steinhoff <armin@steinhoff.de>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org,
	Asier Tamayo <asier.tamayo@ona-electroerosion.com>,
	linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT patch vs RTAI/Xenomai
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 18:27:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BEB5569.3040008@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BEAFB7E.90304@steinhoff.de>

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

>> If tuned properly, PREEMPT_RT can easily handle 1ms requirements. On a
>> standard x86 CPU (we support others than x86) our goal is never to be
>>   
> 
> I did a test with user space based CAN driver.
> Already the standard distribution of SUSE 11.2 (non RT) was able to 
> handle 1000 frames per seconds sent by a QNX6 machine !!

If your requirements are "never to exceed" a certain latency,
I highly recommend you run tests for long-durations, rather
than a short period. A 10-min or even a 1 hour run will not
give you a full idea as a 24-72 hour run will.

> The PREEMPT_RT version of SUSE 11.2 is much, much faster :-)
>> over 100us in reaction time.
>>   
> 
> The latency test of PREEMPT_RT shows a latency of ~10us for a dual-core 
> box at 1.8GHz.

Are you using cyclictest? And how long did you run it for?


thanks,
Nivedita

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-05-13  1:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-11 14:42 PREEMPT_RT patch vs RTAI/Xenomai Asier Tamayo
2010-05-11 15:20 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2010-05-11 15:30   ` Asier Tamayo
2010-05-12 16:07     ` Steven Rostedt
     [not found]       ` <4BEAFB7E.90304@steinhoff.de>
2010-05-13  1:27         ` Nivedita Singhvi [this message]
2010-05-13  8:07           ` Armin Steinhoff
2010-05-13  8:01       ` Armin Steinhoff
2010-05-13 17:58         ` Robert Schwebel
2010-05-14  9:34           ` Armin Steinhoff
2010-05-14 11:46             ` Robert Schwebel
2010-05-14 12:32               ` Armin Steinhoff
2010-05-14 16:36                 ` Robert Schwebel
2010-05-14 16:29                   ` Armin Steinhoff
2010-05-14 20:53                     ` Robert Schwebel
2010-06-30 11:33               ` fast interprocess communication ? Armin Steinhoff
2010-06-30 11:39                 ` Pradyumna Sampath
2010-07-05 16:48                   ` Armin Steinhoff
2010-07-06 10:29                     ` Pradyumna Sampath

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=4BEB5569.3040008@us.ibm.com \
    --to=niv@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=armin@steinhoff.de \
    --cc=asier.tamayo@ona-electroerosion.com \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).