Processor Load
Nick.SIMON at syntegra.bt.co.uk
Nick.SIMON at syntegra.bt.co.uk
Tue Sep 26 15:06:29 UTC 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonp at plris.com [mailto:leonp at plris.com]
> Sent: 26 September 2000 16:38
> To: Nick.SIMON at syntegra.bt.co.uk
> Cc: rtems-users at oarcorp.com
> Subject: RE: Processor Load
>
>
> At 15:07 26/09/2000 +0100, you wrote:
> >This is a bit h/w dependent, but how about using a spare
> timer? Timer ISR
> >looks at the interrupted address, increments idle counter if
> in idle task,
> >busy counter otherwise. You'd have to ensure the period of
> this timer
> >didn't have common factor with other regular system events
> or your results
> >would be distorted by synchronisation. Make it a prime
> number of system
> >clocks and you're laughing.
> (I forgot to mention that I used PIT timer to count one minute..)
>
> Your method should work fine, I think. The only one problem,
> that it has,
> IMHO, is it's inaccuracy - 1 tick. So, if your task
> scheduling (because of
> your definitions or outside world behavior) works so, that
> there is a task
> which works 0.1% of time but exactly at the moment the
> TimerISR occurs, it
> will measure full load. Or I have missed something?
>
>
> Leon Pollak
> leonp at plris.com
>
I had in mind a *hardware* timer, running independently of the O/S tick - my
mindset springs from mpc860 which has more on-chip peripherals than you can
shake a stick at. Youre quite right in that doing it on the O/S tick would
produce deceptive results, as that'd be just the time to start something
waiting on a timer!
-- Nick Simon
More information about the users
mailing list