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
next prev 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).