Re: Possible Xenomai 3 latency regression on arm64
Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 10:53:59 +0200
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.xenomai |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Florian Bezdeka <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 2026-06-22 at 09:13 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> Philippe Gerum <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> writes: >> > >> > > On 15.06.26 09:35, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> > > > Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> writes: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > >> > > > > it seems we got some >10% worst-case latency increase over the last >> > > > > month with Xenomai head and 6.12 - that is at least the setup we use in >> > > > > our long-running weekly test. >> > > > > >> > > > > Tonight, the RPi4 test triggered by exceeding the configured limit of >> > > > > 150 µs [1]. About half a year ago, we were in 130 µs range with it [2]. >> > > > > x86 and beaglebone are apparently not seeing this change. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > My rpi4 fried. Is the issue visible with x4 as well? >> > > > >> > > >> > > We do not have long-running latency tests for x4 yet, do we, Tobias? >> > > >> > >> > Ok, I can try this on an odroid c4. Did anyone succeeded in booting a >> > mainline kernel on pi5? Last time I checked, root-over-nfs was not >> > possible yet. >> >> A follow up on the latency issue. I did notice a regression in the >> latency figures with v4 too, specifically on arm64. The issue was >> introduced in v6.12.85-cip22-dovetail3-rebase, where vDSO support for >> oob callers was unexpectedly disabled due to applying 682c4aa14fe6. That >> change is correct starting from v6.18.y, but should not have been >> applied to v6.12.y. The bug caused a ~12% increase in the worst-case >> latency figures on odroid c4. >> >> With that change reverted, I'm back to normal on c4 with >> v6.12.90-cip24-dovetail2-rebase. A couple of additional fixes to the >> generic lib/vdso support went in as well, but those have no effect on >> latency. >> >> All dovetail and v4/evl branches have been updated accordingly. > > All those changes are not yet part of the 7.1 branches (which have been > recently rebased to the first 7.1 release). Will you (Philippe) take > care of integrating that or should I pick it? If you already merged the latest changes from 7.0 into 7.1 on the fly, please pick them, otherwise I'll do it. -- Philippe.