Jan Kiszka wrote: > Sebastian Smolorz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > we all know that the latency test should not be run with a period of 100 > > us because it easily gets locked up. The attached trace illustrates this > > problem in detail. It shows that a timer interrupt needs about 50 us to > > be processed. Furthermore, there is not enough time between two timer > > interrupts for the latency task to get all its work done. > > > > The current I-pipe tracer patch for ARM is available at > > http://opensource.emlix.com/ipipe-s3c24xx/download/ipipe-tracer-arm.patch > >_v4 > > > > Comments welcome. > > Something is still broken, given all those "N"s in Delay column. Is > there something like NMI at all on your board?
There isn't AFAIK. What could be the reason for all this noise? Recursive spin-locking? > > BTW, two asses the tracer's overhead, you may want to run some > consecutive ipipe_trace_specials and watch the result in the log. Should > be around 1.something per trace point. It lies between 1.5 and 2.25 us. So the delay values get much more better. -- Sebastian _______________________________________________ Adeos-main mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
