[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180328153135.GG13942@piout.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:31:35 +0200
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: Alexander Dahl <ada@...rsis.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] clocksource: rework Atmel TCB timer driver
On 28/03/2018 at 16:36:34 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 28/03/2018 16:16, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 28/03/2018 at 15:03:11 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 28/03/2018 12:29, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> >>> Hello Daniel,
> >>>
> >>> Am Dienstag, 27. März 2018, 13:30:22 CEST schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
> >>>> Can you can give a rough amount for the irq rate on the timer ?
> >>>
> >>> I used itop [1] now to get a rough estimate. First with kernel v4.14.29-rt25
> >>> (fully preempt RT):
> >>>
> >>> INT NAME RATE MAX
> >>> 19 [ vel tc_clkevt] 397 Ints/s (max: 432)
> >>> 26 [ vel eth0] 4 Ints/s (max: 38)
> >>>
> >>> Next test with kernel v4.15.13 gives (slightly slower, but non-RT):
> >>>
> >>> INT NAME RATE MAX
> >>> 19 [ vel tc_clkevt] 248 Ints/s (max: 273)
> >>> 26 [ vel eth0] 4 Ints/s (max: 11)
> >>>
> >>> With kernel v4.16-rc7 plus this patch series and tcb as clocksource:
> >>>
> >>> INT NAME RATE MAX
> >>> 17 [vel timer@...a] 2164 Ints/s (max: 2183)
> >>> 26 [ vel eth0] 5 Ints/s (max: 10)
> >>>
> >>> Is this the information you wanted? If not, could you point me on how to get
> >>> the requested irq rate?
> >>
> >> It is perfect. Thanks!
> >>
> >> It confirms what I was worried about: the clocksource wraps up too
> >> quickly thus raising an interrupt every 400us. That is why I asked
> >> Alexande about a prescalar register.
> >>
> >
> > The code should behave exactly the same between the previous and the new
> > driver. The interrupt is not coming from the clocksource but from the
> > clockevent and it is already on the slowest clock, the 32kHz one.
>
> Do you have an explanation of why the rate is much higher ?
>
The core is giving deltas of 31 clocks instead of much more than that, I
guess I messed up the initialization somewhere.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists