Montavista's "Open Source Real-Time Linux Project" again
mantegazza at aero.polimi.it
Fri Oct 15 12:01:29 CEST 2004
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 02:18, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
>>Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>Yeah, I know. I doubt that.
>>You doubt which part of what I said?
> ".. want to go ahead and show that it is deterministic, they can."
> Show ? With a scope ?
>>>Provide a static codepath analysis for all execution paths and I might
>>>buy your arguments.
>>Right, and then you have the nerve to lecture me about self-adulation ...
>>I don't have the time to do this myself, but I'd really love to plug a
>>scope and a function generator to machine and compare the VP patches and
>>RTAI under very high stress. This certainly would certainly be food for
>>thought for everyone involved.
> And the scope does what you argued in a LKML thread and what I asked for
> "And this has been demonstrated mathematically/algorithmically to be
> true 100% of the time, regardless of the load and the driver set?"
> That's why I was saying "blah". Provide the things yourself to prove
> your point, before asking others to provide them.
> Here are the LibeRTOS/KURT (2.4) numbers on the same machine (300MHZ
> Pentium) compared to RTAI in a long run test:
> IRQ latency for a self contained IRQ
> RTAI LibeRTOS
> No Load 7,8 usec 7,8 usec
> ping -f 8,6 usec 9,8 usec
> hackbench 12,6 usec 11,8 usec
> hbench + ping-f 13,6 usec 13,4 usec
> Userspace latency
> RTAI LXRT LibeRTOS
> No Load 18,92 usec 20,45 usec
> ping -f 19,10 usec 21,14 usec
> hackbench 33,10 usec 35,16 usec
> hackb + ping -f 34,56 usec 35,40 usec
What version of RTAI please?
More information about the Rtai