- Posts: 228
- Thank you received: 58
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I don't think it can be guaranteed but I've done no testing.@rodw Do you believe that a 1 ms periodic thread will not see a 1.5 ms wide pulse?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
you have to allow for some jitter on the µC and the PC side, >=2 periods is the safe bet.@rodw Do you believe that a 1 ms periodic thread will not see a 1.5 ms wide pulse?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
>1 gives no margin for jitterWhy > 2 and not > 1 ?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
I think the "Unexpected realtime delay" warning is issued if jitter of >1T occurs, i.e. an interval >2T, so from that POV it makes sense to use 2T, further increasing the period length won't buy you much -- you shouldn't run a machine where "Unexpected realtime delay" warnings are occuring.All that said, pragmatically and defensively speaking, you do have to be aware of the jitter. Linuxcnc is not a hard real time system -- you could see an occasional surprising departure from the 1ms nominal time. Consequently, a 1.2T pulse would be statistically better than a 1.1T pulse and of course a 2T pulse would improve the chances further, but so would 2.5T and my point was that the 2 factor appeared rather arbitrary. More importantly, I wanted to observe that I don't see anything algorithmic or design-based implying [precisely] 2 over any other factor greater than 1.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.