On Sun, Jul 1, 2012, at 04:59 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > Scott Hasse wrote: > > Are you perhaps associating the wrong run count and run times log entries? > > In the four-line log snippet you show I believe the middle two entries > > would be associated with each other. I see the times between divided by > > runs between to be quite stable. I have run the latency tests and get > > about 8000 ns on this 525mw with hyper threading disabled and the other > > recommended tweaks. > > > No, I'm comparing 40 vs 60, and 796760 vs. 1035788, both of these are > pretty large > variations. The last two numbers are 796 us and 1035 us, so that is a > difference of > 239 us!!!!! YOW! I'm not sure exactly what this "time between" > measurement is, > I was assuming it was the time difference between your executions of the > encoder.n.capture-position HAL function.
I think that assumption is wrong. Scott will have to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure these aren't the times of individual executions of the thread. They are the times and number of thread executions between each time the code sees an edge of his incoming signal. That would seem to indicate that the incoming signal has a bunch of jitter. And he has said he is going to get the instrumentation to actually look at it and see. A real scope (as opposed to halscope) would be the best bet. -- John Kasunich jmkasun...@fastmail.fm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
