From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <55A41E26.9020903@sigmatek.at> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:23:02 +0200 From: Johann Obermayr MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20150710094655.GS20176@hermes.click-hack.org> <559FA1D1.6060602@sigmatek.at> <20150710104957.GT20176@hermes.click-hack.org> <55A3C023.5070000@sigmatek.at> <20150713140208.GC1554@hermes.click-hack.org> <55A3D1B2.50905@sigmatek.at> <55A3EE26.5070802@sigmatek.at> <7413ead94cb8c4f3a91d1288a27103c9.squirrel@sourcetrek.com> <55A3F4B3.1090908@sigmatek.at> <20150713195856.GA1552@hermes.click-hack.org> In-Reply-To: <20150713195856.GA1552@hermes.click-hack.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] usage of rtdm_task_sleep_abs Reply-To: johann.obermayr@sigmatek.at List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Am 13.07.2015 um 21:58 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:26:11PM +0200, Johann Obermayr wrote: >> Am 13.07.2015 um 19:21 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: >>> Johann Obermayr wrote: >>>> Am 13.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: >>>>> Johann Obermayr wrote: >>>>>> without your application, there are no large latencies. >>>>>> with your application see frozen.txt (with latency -f) >>>>> I am confused. You mean "our application", not "your application", >>>>> right? >>>>> lrtdrv_monitoring_irq is not part of the code delivered by the Xenomai >>>>> project. >>>>> >>>>>> We see the problem only if one task (background) is accessing the SRAM >>>>>> on your PCI-Card. if we stop this task, all is ok. >>>>> Again: the Xenomai project does not make PCI-card. So, you probably mean >>>>> "our PCI-Card"? >>>> yes, our PCI-Card. (sorry for my bad english) >>>>>> So we have a higher prior task (pci-locker), that interrupt the >>>>>> background task, so that the pci bus get free. >>>>> I am not sure I understand your explanations. But the trace is pretty >>>>> clear: >>>>> >>>>> At time -658 the timer is programmed to tick at -561. >>>>> >>>>>> :| # event tick@-561 -658 0.112 xntimer_next_local_shot+0xca >>>>>> :| + func -651 0.145 lrtdrv_monitoring_irq+0x4 >>>>>> [sigmatek_lrt] (irq_hook_handler+0x32 [sigmatek_lrt]) >>>>>> :| + end 0x000000ef -651! 641.640 apic_timer_interrupt+0x52 >>>>>> (<102d0254>) >>>>> But at that point the tick is delayed for 600us. And according to the >>>>> trace, the last traced function called before that delay is the function >>>>> >>>>> ltdrv_monitoring_irq. >>>>> >>>>> So, I do not know what this irq is doing, but I would suggest having a >>>>> close look at it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> hello, >>>> >>>> i have disable our lrtdrv_monitoring_irq. >>>> Only have this callback >>>> static void irq_hook_handler(unsigned int irq, unsigned int state) >>>> { >>>> if (fpga_interrupt == irq && state == 0x01) >>>> { >>>> time_fpga_irq = rt_timer_tsc(); >>>> } >>>> } >>>> same latency >>> Maybe, but your trace does not contain enough points to see it. The trace >>> should at least contain the "tick@" event which gets missed, so that we >>> can see how much the interrupt is delayed, and what was happening at the >>> time. >>> >>> >> Hi, >> >> Sorry, here with more points. > Ok, what is irq_hook_handler ? > Ok. on out PCI Card there is a FPGA. This FPGA generate am Interrupt to the PC. But internal in the FPGA there are different IRQ sources. One of them is our Tick. So we measure the time from __ipipe_handle_irq to the our rtdm_irq_request handler. In our handler we can check, if it our Tick and than we can calc the correct time to start our pci_locker task 50us before next Tick-irq. It's a callback function from some irq function ipipe_raise_irq, __ipipe_do_IRQ, __ipipe_handle_irq for our own tracing and it save the fpga irq time. Only __ipipe_handle_irq have state 0x01 (begin irq) & state 0x02 at the end of the function. Regards Johann