I think there have been effort before on BeagleBoard for the Linux kernel below is an link. http://elinux.org/BeagleBoard#Linux_kernel Try and do the entire build as per this or If you are looking for angstrom http://beagleboard.org/project/angstrom/ I think you would have hit these in your efforts, But any way checking. On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Maksym Parkachov <lazy.gopher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sujit, > > thanks for the links, though they mostly have to do with application > performance. I don't have any problem with app performance as there is > no apps running yet :) > > This is embedded system. There is no modules loaded, there is no > network, there is no processes running beside busybox. Clean, fast, > just real-time is not working :) > > I did check the dmesg, and unfortunately there is nothing unusual. No > new messages after running cyclictest. > > I'll try to enable all kernel debugging options, but I'm not sure if > it helps, I don't really know what to look for in the messages or in > statistics. > > Cheers, > Maksym. > > On 21 June 2010 12:34, Sujit K M <sjt.kar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Searching for "kernel tuning in linux" I found some relevant but not >> upto date articles. >> >> http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/146599 >> http://www.linuxforums.org/articles/linux-performance-tuning_107.html >> >> By the way I found something funny with your "lock_stat" gzip file. It >> had the following warning. >> >> "lock_stat version 0.3 >> *WARNING* lock debugging disabled!! - possibly due to a lockdep warning" >> >> Also I think you could run dmesg to see the actvity for some clarity. >> >> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Maksym Parkachov <lazy.gopher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> it's me again with beagleboard RT problem. >>> >>> I recompiled the kernel and got some statistics on locks, but I'm not >>> sure how to interpret it. Searching on google didn't help, probably, >>> not asking right question. >>> >>> Here are stats from /proc after running cyclictest. >>> >>> If you could take a look at it, it would be great. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Maksym. >>> >>> On 15 June 2010 09:34, Maksym Parkachov <lazy.gopher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> thanks for all suggestions. >>>> I'll try with lock validation and see if I could come with more details. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Maksym. >>>> >>>> On 14 June 2010 13:27, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich >>>> <thebigcorporation@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 13:05 +0200, John Kacur wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Sujit K M wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y >>>>> %< >>>>>> His problem is not with the config. >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Nope - the config is just fine. >>>>> >>>>> Turn on the lock validator and >>>>> recompile the Kernel. >>>>> >>>>> Then repeat the test that produced the latency spike. >>>>> >>>>> If that doesn't produce any locking issues, >>>>> turn on latency tracing and repeat. >>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in >>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- Sujit K M >> >> blog(http://kmsujit.blogspot.com/) >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- -- Sujit K M blog(http://kmsujit.blogspot.com/) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
