 | | RE: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) I have been following this thread in my peripheral vision for a while now. All of the talk is very interesting and appears to be leading to a general question about how and why the drivers are the way they are.... As a point of interest, some (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Hi there, did some worh with rcx/legos/DSM in my thesis which can be found at www.cs.uit.no/~kenne.../Thesis.ps Although i didnt share the memory of each rcx, i installed a dsm server(created at the local university) on a notebook which each rcx (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Mark Riley wrote: > Actually, if we move the sys_time > handler back to OCRA (instead of the watchdog NMI), > then we could just check if bit 0 of sys_time is zero to > determine if the subsystem handler should be called (plus > this will get (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Yes Kekoa it's a bottle neck, as I wrote on the original message, the main idea is to distribute the load, with the MINIMUM amount of network traffic. I think that all the RCX should be connected through fibre optics, in order to implement the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Hi Marc, (...) Nice idea, but wouldn't that result in at least one of four cycles beeing blocked by OCRA? or is our system interrupt finished within less than 250msec? (...) Right, that was what I did for my Lepomux patch - works fine. Gunther (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) My thought was that the OCRA interrupt could be used as the general 1ms interrupt and the subsystem handler (which is currently using OCRB) could be called every other time from the OCRA handler by using a flag (toggled every 1ms). Actually, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Last year I built a robot which used multiple RCXs in the way you mention. I was building a sumo wrestling battle bot, and at some point ran out of sensor ports. For my sumo bot I'd built up some small abstraction layers around the sensors and (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Just a question about this. Won't the IR airwaves will be a major bottleneck for most parallel applications? -Kekoa (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
OCRA and OCRB are output interrupts for the 16 bit timer. They can be programmed to fire at specific points along the timers run. So, technically, they cannot be used independently of each other. If OCRA resets the timer value back to zero, then (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Hi all. I'm taking a course on parallel/distributed operating systems. So this post attempts to find out if someone has thought, or has implemented some kind of distributed application over BrickOS/legOS (from now legOS, for this post). I know (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) Timer B is usually unused but has a lower priority than Timer A. If you do a lot of stuff in the timer A routine, this will block timer B interrupts (especially if timer B generates more interrupts than timer A). The mean thing is that those (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
From the second scope screen capture here : (URL) you can see that the analog settling time is about 10 microseconds for the rotation sensor. Philo www.philohome.com (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) I've found that any interrupt on the RCX has a minimum overhead of 101 to 113 states (or about 7 us). This is the time taken by the CPU to recognize and dispatch the interrupt plus the time the ROM routine takes to dispatch the interrupt to (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Joe, That's definitely an improvement! So, that would be a 250 Hz sample rate for any given sensor. I just tried a modification similar to yours that did all 4 conversions every OCRA/B interrupt (or 1 KHz sample rate) and got: IDLE: 82 2ROT: 77 (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
I did some "real world" tests with this update. I was Astounded at what a difference it makes. The bot I was testing with is a killough platform; which I had tried for hours previously, to get it to follow a line smoothly. I think BrickOS was giving (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Mark, I retrieved the latest BrickOS from CVS, made clean and made the cpu test program you listed. I then made two small changes (to see what would happen); first the results, then the changes: IDLE: 89 2ROT: 87 NOAD: 91 (see below) NIRQ: 98 (see (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) The delay was added a long time ago after a bit of discussion on this newsgroup/list. A search through old newsgroup posts will turn up a brief series of three posts with subject "Rom sensor read routine" from Apr/May 1999. The explanation (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Patches on SourceForge? A good/bad way to get changes into brickOS?
|
|
I've just posted (URL) note that there are 4 other patches lingering from as far back as September. Will my patch be looked at because it has been posted there? For info, here is the patch description The last version of binutils that brickOS works (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
This was a terrific analysis. It's not surprizing that current implementation hogs so much CPU time. If all four A/D channels are scanned every 150 us then the A/D interrupt is occuring every 37.5 us since each A/D channel generates its own (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) This would be my favourites. If one builds a fast moving robot, main concern will be how fast the robot reacts to light sensor changes or how small the structures could be that the light sensor will "see". If one builds a thinking robot, for (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
