Re: 2.6.13-rt3

2005-09-08 Thread Stephane Couture
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ingo, I just found a __MAJOR__ bug in my code. Below is the patch that fixes this bug, zaps the WARN_ON in check_pi_list_present, and changes ALL_TASKS_PI to a booleon instead of just a define. The major bug was in __down_try

Re: 2.6.13-rt3

2005-09-01 Thread Steven Rostedt
Ingo, I just found a __MAJOR__ bug in my code. Below is the patch that fixes this bug, zaps the WARN_ON in check_pi_list_present, and changes ALL_TASKS_PI to a booleon instead of just a define. The major bug was in __down_trylock. See anything wrong with this code :-) I'm surprised that this

Re: 2.6.13-rt3

2005-09-01 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ingo, > > I just found a __MAJOR__ bug in my code. Below is the patch that > fixes this bug, zaps the WARN_ON in check_pi_list_present, and changes > ALL_TASKS_PI to a booleon instead of just a define. > > The major bug was in __down_trylock. Se

Re: 2.6.13-rt3

2005-09-01 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:24 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Note: I compiled this, but I haven't run it yet. I'll run it right after > I send this note and respond how it worked. > I'm currently sending this message while running the kernel with this patch. But I haven't compiled with RT_DEADL

Re: 2.6.13-rt3

2005-09-01 Thread Steven Rostedt
Ingo, Here's a patch to fix some of the problems when defining ALL_TASKS_PI. The pi_setprio logic is currently incorrect. This should fix that. I converted ALL_TASKS_PI to a constant number, so that it can be used in if statements. -- Steve Note: I compiled this, but I haven't run it yet. I'll

Re: [FYI] 2.6.13-rt3 and a nanosleep jitter test.

2005-08-31 Thread Daniel Walker
No problem .. There are some other tests in there though .. I've been using them for stress testing .. Apparently you don't need HRT on to use them either. Daniel On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 11:19 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:13 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > Sorry, that's

Re: [FYI] 2.6.13-rt3 and a nanosleep jitter test.

2005-08-31 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:12 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > There is already a suite HRT of tests they include a nanosleep jitter > test with 8 or 9 other tests.. > > find them inside the hrt-support patch at http://high-res-timer.sf.net Wow, they are hidden nicely :-) I was looking for a tar ball

Re: [FYI] 2.6.13-rt3 and a nanosleep jitter test.

2005-08-31 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 08:13 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > Sorry, that's http://high-res-timers.sf.net/ Thanks, But I always seem to prefer to rewrite the wheel than to use one that already exists. ;-) Probably explains why my cars are always in the shop! -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this li

Re: [FYI] 2.6.13-rt3 and a nanosleep jitter test.

2005-08-31 Thread Daniel Walker
atest time over: 1997.701 usecs > never ran under (good!) > average time over: 1993.485 usecs > > On 2.6.13-rt3: > > # ./jitter > starting calibrate > finished calibrate: 2133.2960MHz 2133295991 > time slept: 0.01000 sec: 0 nsec: 1000 > max: 0.010034857 > min: 0

Re: [FYI] 2.6.13-rt3 and a nanosleep jitter test.

2005-08-31 Thread Daniel Walker
ept: 0.01000 sec: 0 nsec: 1000 > max: 0.011997701 > min: 0.011890522 > avg: 0.011993485 > greatest time over: 1997.701 usecs > never ran under (good!) > average time over: 1993.485 usecs > > On 2.6.13-rt3: > > # ./jitter > starting calibrate > finishe

[FYI] 2.6.13-rt3 and a nanosleep jitter test.

2005-08-31 Thread Steven Rostedt
time slept: 0.01000 sec: 0 nsec: 1000 max: 0.011997701 min: 0.011890522 avg: 0.011993485 greatest time over: 1997.701 usecs never ran under (good!) average time over: 1993.485 usecs On 2.6.13-rt3: # ./jitter starting calibrate finished calibrate: 2133.2960MHz 2133295991 time slept: 0.0100