On 28/03/2018 at 15:03:11 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 28/03/2018 12:29, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > Hello Daniel, > > > > Am Dienstag, 27. März 2018, 13:30:22 CEST schrieb Daniel Lezcano: > >> Can you can give a rough amount for the irq rate on the timer ? > > > > I used itop [1] now to get a rough estimate. First with kernel > > v4.14.29-rt25 > > (fully preempt RT): > > > > INT NAME RATE MAX > > 19 [ vel tc_clkevt] 397 Ints/s (max: 432) > > 26 [ vel eth0] 4 Ints/s (max: 38) > > > > Next test with kernel v4.15.13 gives (slightly slower, but non-RT): > > > > INT NAME RATE MAX > > 19 [ vel tc_clkevt] 248 Ints/s (max: 273) > > 26 [ vel eth0] 4 Ints/s (max: 11) > > > > With kernel v4.16-rc7 plus this patch series and tcb as clocksource: > > > > INT NAME RATE MAX > > 17 [vel timer@fffa] 2164 Ints/s (max: 2183) > > 26 [ vel eth0] 5 Ints/s (max: 10) > > > > Is this the information you wanted? If not, could you point me on how to > > get > > the requested irq rate? > > It is perfect. Thanks! > > It confirms what I was worried about: the clocksource wraps up too > quickly thus raising an interrupt every 400us. That is why I asked > Alexande about a prescalar register. >
The code should behave exactly the same between the previous and the new driver. The interrupt is not coming from the clocksource but from the clockevent and it is already on the slowest clock, the 32kHz one. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
