Re: [Paparazzi-devel] LPC2148 performance

[Gautier Hattenberger]

Hello,

I just add a new module "sys_mon.xml" to monitor the CPU activity. It 
gives the actual period of the periodic calls, the duty cycle of these 
calls with min and max values, the percentage of the cycle and the 
average number of event calls between to periodic calls. And it works 
with fixed-wing and quadrotors autopilot.

Gautier

Le 04/08/2010 17:49, Felix Ruess a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I recently did this for Booz. If I did the calculations correctly I
> had an average CPU load of around 50% and a max of just over 60% on
> Booz.
> For fixed wings this should be significantly lower.
> You can check out what I did for Booz (in booz2_main.c) and define
> CALC_CPU_LOAD in your airframe file.
> Gautier was also thinking of doing a cpu load computation with a
> module for fw and booz in the near future.
>
> Cheers, Felix
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Martin Mueller<address@hidden>  wrote:
>    
> > Hi,
> >
> > some long time ago a measurement was done for the ATMEGA processor and showed a maximum 
> > load of around 17% for that "old" 8bit 16MHz processor. Maybe that stuff could 
> > help to implement a load monitor for the LPC.
> >
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/2005-09/msg00001.html
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > ----- original Nachricht --------
> >
> > Betreff: RE: [Paparazzi-devel] LPC2148 performance
> > Gesendet: Mi, 02. Dez 2009
> > Von: Cédric Marzer<address@hidden>
> >
> >      
> > > Would it be possible to add an extra message that shows a percentage
> > > telling
> > > how much of the processing power one has left ? I think there is plenty of
> > > processing power left for a normal flight but having some feedback would be
> > > reassuring...
> > >
> > > Cédric
> > >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : address@hidden
> > > [mailto:address@hidden De la
> > > part
> > > de Steve Joyce
> > > Envoyé : mardi, 1. décembre 2009 15:52
> > > À : address@hidden
> > > Objet : [Paparazzi-devel] LPC2148 performance
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever done any profiling on the airborne code to see how how many
> > >
> > > extra cycles are available in the various loops? I don't really have a good
> > >
> > > feeling for how much extra code you could sqeeze in there.  Are there tools
> > >
> > > available for that type of analysis?
> > >
> > > What would actually happen if you exceeded the available instructions
> > > within
> > >
> > > a loop?
> > >
> > > /steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
> > >
> > >        
> > --- original Nachricht Ende ----
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
> >
> >      
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>