Try rtlinux_sigaction and see how that does.
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:52:16PM -0500, Ken Teh wrote:
> I've been testing interrupt latencies with RTLinux-3 on the 200MHz Pentium
> machine. I have an external logic that sends an interrupt to the PC and
> latches a veto which blocks further interrupts. The PC outputs a pulse
> which clears the veto thus allowing further interrupts. I measure, on a
> scope, the time difference between the input signal and the output signal
> thereby giving me an pretty decent view of what the latency looks like.
>
> I have the following numbers:
>
> Case 1: the IRQ handler sends the output pulse - 6us.
> Case 2: the IRQ handler dispatches a rt thread which sends the output pulse
> - 10us.
>
> Case 3: the IRQ handler stuffs an RT fifo with an int; a user space process
> does a blocking read on the fifo and sends the output pulse - 40us
> (sometimes 50).
>
>
> In the case of #3, I'm wondering if a faster processor would do any better.
> Does anyone know? I'm debating whether to do my task as a rt thread or as a
> user space process. My task would take up to 1ms to complete. Obviously,
> the rt task is faster, but would lack user space fault protection. If it is
> possible to bring #3 down to about 10us with a faster processor, then it may
> be worth it.
>
> Thanks! Ken
>
> -- [rtl] ---
> To unsubscribe:
> echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
> echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
> http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
