From: Wolfgang Netbal <wolfgang.netbal@sigmatek.at>
To: xenomai@xenomai.org
Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Performance impact after switching from 2.6.2.1 to 2.6.4
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:52:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <574EE886.2020907@sigmatek.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160531141646.GG5951@hermes.click-hack.org>
Am 2016-05-31 um 16:16 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:09:07PM +0200, Wolfgang Netbal wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> we have moved our application from "XENOMAI 2.6.2.1 + Linux 3.0.43" to
>> "XENOMAI 2.6.4. + Linux 3.10.53". Our target is an i.MX6DL. The system
>> is now up and running and works stable. Unfortunately we see a
>> difference in the performance. Our old combination (XENOMAI 2.6.2.1 +
>> Linux 3.0.43) was slightly faster.
>>
>> At the moment it looks like that XENOMAI 2.6.4 calls
>> xnpod_schedule_handler much more often then XENOMAI 2.6.2.1 in our old
>> system. Every call of xnpod_schedule_handler interrupts our main
>> XENOMAI task with priority = 95.
>>
>> I have compared the configuration of both XENOMAI versions but did not
>> found any difference. I checked the source code (new commits) but did
>> also not find a solution.
> Have you tried Xenomai 2.6.4 with Linux 3.0.43 ? In order to see
> whether it comes from the kernel update or the Xenomai udpate?
I've tried Linux 3.0.43 with Xenomai 2.6.4 an there is no difference to
Xenomai 2.6.2.1
Looks like there is an other reason than Xenomai.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-01 13:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-31 14:09 [Xenomai] Performance impact after switching from 2.6.2.1 to 2.6.4 Wolfgang Netbal
2016-05-31 14:16 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-01 13:52 ` Wolfgang Netbal [this message]
2016-06-01 14:12 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-02 8:15 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-02 8:23 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-06 7:03 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-06 15:35 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-07 14:13 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-07 17:00 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-27 15:55 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-27 16:00 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 8:08 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-27 16:46 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 8:31 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 8:34 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 9:15 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 9:17 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 9:28 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 9:29 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 9:51 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 9:55 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 10:10 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 10:19 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 10:31 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 10:39 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 11:45 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 11:57 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 11:55 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 12:01 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-28 14:32 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-28 14:42 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-30 9:17 ` Wolfgang Netbal
2016-06-30 9:39 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2016-06-07 17:22 ` Philippe Gerum
2016-05-31 15:08 ` Philippe Gerum
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=574EE886.2020907@sigmatek.at \
--to=wolfgang.netbal@sigmatek.at \
--cc=xenomai@xenomai.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.