Re: MVME177 CPU Utilization

[Markus.Nickels@t-online.de (Markus Nickels)]

Steve O'Neill wrote:

> Ron Thompson wrote:
> > In order to measure CPU Utilization, it is proposed that the figures
>
> > for two 177s, two that are blissfully unaware of one another, be
> > averaged together in order to meet required overhead reserves.
> > Any opinions???  The email is fine for responses if you care to, and
>
> > Thank You all.
> > --
> >
> > rct
> >
> > The opinions above are mine and mine alone.
>
> That's not a valid measure of system reserves.  Unless, of course, one
>
> processor can borrow time from the other or allocate any overload work
>
> to the other processor.  My approach would be to take the worst case
> loading of the two processors.
>
> Of course this is only my opinion.
>
> Steve O'Neill

I agree to Steve. Your approach would be acceptable (from a customers
point of view) if you have a mechanism which allocates dynamically (at
run-time) processing power between the processors. If you choose a
software architecture which gives you the possibility to distribute the
processes statically (at link-time) this may be acceptable, too, but
depends on your customer requirements.
But you pointed out that the processors don't know anything about each
other, so your approach won't be accepted.
It may be interesting how you measure the workload of your processors.
Additionally I'm interested in the characteristics of your project
(cyclic/acyclic processing, hard/soft real time conditions, worst case
scenarios etc.) because I'm working with similar problems.

Markus Nickels
Markus.Nickels@t-online.de