Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Nero Fernandez wrote: > Thanks for the rootfs, Gilles. > Although i am unable to use it directly (i get 'illegal instruction' > error while running any application/busybox-applet), i will try > to construct a similar test-setup for further testing. It is an EABI rootfs. Is EABI enabled in your ker

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Thanks for the rootfs, Gilles. Although i am unable to use it directly (i get 'illegal instruction' error while running any application/busybox-applet), i will try to construct a similar test-setup for further testing. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix < gilles.chanteperd...@xe

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Nero Fernandez wrote: > As far as the adeos patch is concerned, i took a recent one (2.6.32) and > back-ported > it to 2.6.18, so as not to lose out on any new Adeos-only upgrades. There is no such thing as an Adeos patch for linux 2.6.32 on the ARM platforme. --

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Nero Fernandez wrote: > > Yes, the measurements are on no-load scenarios. > I will try to repeat my measurements with system-loads as you suggest. You can find a working root filesystem image with Xenomai 2.5.3 compiled here: http://www.xenomai.org/~gch/pub/rootfs-arm926-ejs.tar.bz2 The root pas

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Yes, the measurements are on no-load scenarios. I will try to repeat my measurements with system-loads as you suggest. Following is the cpu-info of my board: -- Processor : ARM926EJ-S rev 5 (v5l) BogoMIPS: 131.48 Features

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Nero Fernandez wrote: > Thanks for your response, Philippe. > > The concerns while the carrying out my experiments were to: > > - compare xenomai co-kernel overheads (timer and context switch latencies) >in xenomai-space vs similar native-linux overheads. These are > presented in >the fi

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Thanks for your response, Philippe. The concerns while the carrying out my experiments were to: - compare xenomai co-kernel overheads (timer and context switch latencies) in xenomai-space vs similar native-linux overheads. These are presented in the first two sheets. - find out, how addi

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 02:15 +0530, Nero Fernandez wrote: > Thanks for your response, Gilles. > > i modified the code to use semaphore instead of mutex, which worked > fine. > Attached is a compilation of some latency figures and system loading > figures (using lmbench) > that i obtained from my pr

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Nero Fernandez wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix >> > > wrote: >> >> Nero Fernandez wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Please find an archive attached, containing : >> > - a program for

Re: [Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

Nero Fernandez wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix > > wrote: > > Nero Fernandez wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please find an archive attached, containing : > > - a program for testing context-switch-latency usin

[Xenomai-core] Fwd: problem in pthread_mutex_lock/unlock

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix < gilles.chanteperd...@xenomai.org> wrote: > Nero Fernandez wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please find an archive attached, containing : > > - a program for testing context-switch-latency using posix-APIs > >for native linux kernel and xenomai-pos