Re: [Xenomai-help] AT91SAM9260 latency

2008-01-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
On Jan 23, 2008 7:52 AM, Juan Antonio Garcia Redondo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi list, These are my latency results over a custom board based on AT91SAM9260. Environment: kernel 2.6.20 + xenomai 2.4.0 Load: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null plus an external ping -f to

Re: [Xenomai-help] AT91SAM9260 latency

2008-01-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
On Jan 23, 2008 11:04 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 23, 2008 7:52 AM, Juan Antonio Garcia Redondo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see everything OK except for the first samples of cyclictests. Any comments ? The load you apply does not load the cache, which is a

Re: [Xenomai-help] update from fusion 0.9.1 to xenomai 2.4.0

2008-01-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
On Dec 31, 2007 4:23 PM, Racconico Lambrati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/12/31, Gilles Chanteperdrix [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Dec 31, 2007 3:58 PM, Racconico Lambrati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/12/31, Gilles Chanteperdrix [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Dec 30, 2007 9:17 PM,

Re: [Xenomai-help] x86_64 user/system process accounting

2008-01-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Jan Kiszka wrote: Kyle Howell wrote: Kyle Howell wrote: I'm running Xenomai 2.4.1 against Linux 2.6.23.12 on an x86_64 (Core2) system. I'm finding that all of my CPU cycles are being accounted as kernel time rather than user time. The correct processes are still billed, but the system is

Re: [Xenomai-help] x86_64 user/system process accounting

2008-01-23 Thread Kyle Howell
Jan Kiszka wrote: Kyle Howell wrote: Kyle Howell wrote: I'm running Xenomai 2.4.1 against Linux 2.6.23.12 on an x86_64 (Core2) system. I'm finding that all of my CPU cycles are being accounted as kernel time rather than user time. The correct processes are still billed, but the

Re: [Xenomai-help] x86_64 user/system process accounting

2008-01-23 Thread Jan Kiszka
Kyle Howell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Kyle Howell wrote: Kyle Howell wrote: I'm running Xenomai 2.4.1 against Linux 2.6.23.12 on an x86_64 (Core2) system. I'm finding that all of my CPU cycles are being accounted as kernel time rather than user time. The correct processes are still

[Xenomai-help] Calling rt_task_start with cookie not NULL

2008-01-23 Thread Hans Søndergaard (HSO)
The rt_task_start has the following signature: int rt_task_start (RT_TASK * task, void(*)(void *cookie) entry, void * cookie); but I have not been able to find any example where the cookie parameter is not NULL. I am programming an example, where the entry function need some parameters

Re: [Xenomai-help] Calling rt_task_start with cookie not NULL

2008-01-23 Thread Gilles Chanteperdrix
Hans Søndergaard (HSO) wrote: The rt_task_start has the following signature: int rt_task_start (RT_TASK * task, void(*)(void *cookie) entry, void * cookie); but I have not been able to find any example where the cookie parameter is not NULL. I am programming an example,