From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <55A4346B.9030309@sigmatek.at> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:58:03 +0200 From: Johann Obermayr MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <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> <55A41E26.9020903@sigmatek.at> <20150713203133.GA2022@hermes.click-hack.org> <55A4235D.2000601@sigmatek.at> <20150713205412.GC2022@hermes.click-hack.org> In-Reply-To: <20150713205412.GC2022@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: , To: xenomai@xenomai.org Am 13.07.2015 um 22:54 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:45:17PM +0200, Johann Obermayr wrote: >> Am 13.07.2015 um 22:31 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:23:02PM +0200, Johann Obermayr wrote: >>>> 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. >>> I see two weird things in your traces: >>> - irq_hook_handler which is taking a lot of time >>> - or some APIC related functions taking a lot of time. >>> >>> Are you sure your system is not one of those which disable the APIC >>> during idle period. Is your system UP or SMP? >>> >> It's a SMP (Dual core Celeron) > Real dual core, or hyperthreaded ? > >> Kernel cmdline >> nohlt idle=poll xeno_hal.smi=1 isolcpus=0 irqaffinity=1 console=ttyS0,115200 >> BOOT_IMAGE=/bzImage FirstUsbDrive=E console=/dev/null noconsole >> root=/dev/sda2 rw > Do you have the same problem without these options ? > nohlt idle=poll xeno_hal.smi=1 isolcpus=0 irqaffinity=1 > Hello Gilles, the trouble are only if our SRAM test on our pci-card is running (on core1). we have see, that the the core0 must wait, if he will access the fpga. can it be, that the apic has the same trouble ? Regards