Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 12:54 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> having to load xeno_timerbench and to open its device just for
>> triggering the I-pipe tracer was not a smart decision of mine. This
>> patch makes is more comfortable to call the tracer from user space.
>
>> Index: include/asm-generic/syscall.h
>> ===================================================================
>> --- include/asm-generic/syscall.h (Revision 1252)
>> +++ include/asm-generic/syscall.h (Arbeitskopie)
>> @@ -30,6 +30,13 @@
>> #define __xn_sys_info 4 /* xnshadow_get_info(muxid,&info) */
>> #define __xn_sys_arch 5 /* r = xnarch_local_syscall(args) */
>>
>> +#define __xn_sys_trace_begin 6 /* ipipe_trace_begin(v) */
>> +#define __xn_sys_trace_end 7 /* ipipe_trace_end(v) */
>> +#define __xn_sys_trace_freeze 8 /* ipipe_trace_freeze(v) */
>> +#define __xn_sys_trace_specl 9 /*
> ipipe_trace_special(special_id, v) */
>> +#define __xn_sys_trace_mreset 10 /* ipipe_trace_max_reset() */
>> +#define __xn_sys_trace_freset 11 /* ipipe_trace_frozen_reset() */
>> +
>
> Ok for providing a tracer syscall from the nucleus table, but let's
> not pollute the namespace uselessly. We could just have a single
> tracer entry point, using the first arg as a function code for begin,
> end, freeze etc. Given that those ops are not on the fast path, there
> is nothing to gain in having them as separate calls. See __xn_sys_arch
> for ARM.
Ok, will change.
>
>>
>> Index: include/nucleus/ipipe_trace.h
>> ===================================================================
>
> This file should go to include/asm-generic/ since it depends on the
> underlying real-time enabler (i.e. I-pipe). This way, there would be
> no need to check for __XENO_SIM__.
Ok, but how is the user supposed to include the API then? Or can we drag
it in implicitly somehow? That would be even nicer I think.
>
>> --- include/nucleus/ipipe_trace.h (Revision 0)
>> +++ include/nucleus/ipipe_trace.h (Revision 0)
>> @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
>> +/*
>> Index: src/testsuite/latency/latency.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- src/testsuite/latency/latency.c (Revision 1252)
>> +++ src/testsuite/latency/latency.c (Arbeitskopie)
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>> #include <native/timer.h>
>> #include <native/sem.h>
>> #include <rtdm/rttesting.h>
>> +#include <nucleus/ipipe_trace.h>
>>
>> RT_TASK latency_task, display_task;
>>
>> @@ -130,8 +131,7 @@ void latency (void *cookie)
>>
>> if (freeze_max && (dt > gmaxjitter) && !(finished ||
> warmup))
>> {
>> - rt_dev_ioctl(benchdev, RTBNCH_RTIOC_REFREEZE_TRACE,
>> - rt_timer_tsc2ns(dt));
>> + ipipe_trace_refreeze(rt_timer_tsc2ns(dt));
>
> I don't like the idea of spreading ipipe-something symbols and
> dependancies all over the entire source code including the generic one,
> especially when considering that at some point, we are going to have
> preempt-rt as the other possible real-time enabler, like
> Adeos is already used now. We should use something more generic.
> "tracer*" would be ok, I guess.
>
I'm going to rescan Ingo's API to define a common interface where
feasible (their own user space API seems to hide behind gettimeofday).
BTW, looks like that tracer will not make into mainline soon - I noticed
no further pushing recently.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
