Re: Vulcano Test

That's (calibration) something really strange. Just wondering why on a 
machine like yours I get:
SYSINFO - # CPUs: 2, TIMER NAME: 'lapic', TIMER IRQ: 2305, TIMER FREQ: 
8308369,
CLOCK NAME: 'tsc', CLOCK FREQ: 997204000, CPU FREQ: 997204000, LINUX 
TIMER IRQ:
2305.
RTAI[malloc]: global heap size = 2097152 bytes, <TLSF>.
, kstacks pool size = 524288 bytes.
RTAI[sched]: hard timer type/freq = lapic/8308369(Hz); timing: oneshot; 
black/red timed lists.
RTAI[sched]: Linux timer freq = 1000 (Hz), TimeBase freq = 997204000 hz.
RTAI[sched]: timer setup = 120 ns, resched latency = 0 ns.
RTAI[usi]: enabled.
USERMODE CHECK: OK.
USERMODE CHECK PROVIDED (ns): KernelLatency -1, UserLatency -1.
AFTER KERNEL CALIBRATION (WITH RTAI TASK, ns): KernelLatency 1715, 
UserLatency -1 (CALIBRATION: PERIOD 100000 (ns), TIME 1009367042 (ns)).
USERMODE USER SPACE CALIBRATION: OK.
AFTER USER CALIBRATION (ns): KernelLatency 1715, UserLatency 2225 
(CALIBRATION:
vi list    PERIOD 100000 (ns), TIME 1014464466 (ns)).
FINAL CALIBRATION SUMMARY (ns): KernelLatency 1715, UserLatency 2225.

with

RTAI Testsuite - USER latency (all data in nanoseconds)
2016/03/31 15:32:32
RTH|    lat min|    ovl min|    lat avg|    lat max|    ovl max| overruns
RTD|        121|        121|        609|       6424| 6424|          0
RTD|        434|        121|        548|       3984| 6424|          0
^CRTD|        434|        121|        548|       3984| 6424|          0

 >>> S = 98.696, EXECTIME = 0.0325566

Since I've consistent results on two other machines, up to 3.3 GHz, I'm 
let asking you to help me in seeing what goes wrong.
In such a view edits "latencies" file, found in subdir calibrate of your 
installation directory, putting my figures above in it and checking what 
you get with the test.
Then you can play configuring with the period and calibration duration 
to see if they provide a change, and report the outcomes.
BTW, send me the rtai_config.h that produced those results.

Paolo

On 03/31/2016 03:15 PM, Felix Frey wrote:
> Just tested vulcano CVS with kernel 4.1.18
> (on AMD GX-210, x86_64, 2 cores)
>
> Running userspace latency test gives:
>
> RTAI Testsuite - USER latency (all data in nanoseconds)
> 2016/03/31 14:02:43
> RTH| lat min| ovl min| lat avg| lat max| ovl max| overruns
> RTD| -19935| -19935| -18063| -14615| -14615| 0
> RTD| -19723| -19935| -18050| -15267| -14615| 0
> RTD| -19514| -19935| -18060| -15083| -14615| 0
> RTD| -20177| -20177| -18063| -15137| -14615| 0
> RTD| -19828| -20177| -18060| -15116| -14615| 0
>
> These are the kernel messages:
>
> [ 1319.188664] RTAI[hal]: mounted. ISOL_CPUS_MASK: 0, LINUX CPU ISOLATED
> MAP: ffffffff81e61c20).
> [ 1319.197214] SYSINFO - # CPUs: 2, TIMER NAME: 'lapic', TIMER IRQ:
> 4353, TIMER FREQ: 6238209, CLOCK NAME: 'tsc', CLOCK FREQ: 998088000, CP
> U FREQ: 998088000, LINUX TIMER IRQ: 4353.
> [ 1319.248508] RTAI[malloc]: global heap size = 2097152 bytes, <BSD>.
> [ 1319.254814] , kstacks pool size = 524288 bytes.
> [ 1319.259457] RTAI[sched]: hard timer type/freq = lapic/6238209(Hz);
> timing: oneshot; linear timed lists.
> [ 1319.268913] RTAI[sched]: Linux timer freq = 250 (Hz), TimeBase freq =
> 998088000 hz.
> [ 1319.276593] RTAI[sched]: timer setup = 160 ns, resched latency = 0 ns.
> [ 1319.284973] USERMODE CHECK: OK.
> [ 1319.288155] USERMODE CHECK PROVIDED (ns): KernelLatency -1,
> UserLatency -1.
> [ 1320.331572] AFTER KERNEL CALIBRATION (WITH RTAI TASK, ns):
> KernelLatency 21009, UserLatency -1 (CALIBRATION: PERIOD 200000 (ns),
> TIME 10
> 36380956 (ns)).
> [ 1321.362282] USERMODE USER SPACE CALIBRATION: OK.
> [ 1321.366937] AFTER USER CALIBRATION (ns): KernelLatency 21009,
> UserLatency 23941 (CALIBRATION: PERIOD 200000 (ns), TIME 1021744803 (ns)).
> [ 1321.379211] FINAL CALIBRATION SUMMARY (ns): KernelLatency 21009,
> UserLatency 23941.
> [ 1334.500839] RTAI[malloc]: unloaded.
> [ 1334.600674] RTAI[sched]: unloaded (forced hard/soft/hard transitions:
> traps 0, syscalls 0).
> [ 1334.623217] I-pipe: head domain RTAI unregistered.
> [ 1334.628084] RTAI[hal]: unmounted.
>
>
> The latency values are probably not what they are expected to.
> In my opinion the calibration delivers much too high values (21009/23941).
> Any ideas??
>
> Felix
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtai mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.rtai.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtai

_______________________________________________
Rtai mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.rtai.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rtai