I'm okay with ns jitter. I need to satisfy a 150uS timing response, so that is OK.
Outside the context of RTOSs, isn't this just defining your own interrupt handler? Maybe it should be called "custom interrupt handler"? I'll try to experiment with this, but as I mentioned I'm not sure if it will be useful for this case since I need to interact with the OS. Best, Matias On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, at 13:49, Gregory Nutt wrote: > > On 10/28/2020 10:41 AM, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:21 AM Alan Carvalho de Assis <acas...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Nathan, > >> > >> I totally agree! Zero Jitter Interrupt is a better name. > >> > >> We don't have zero latency, we have zero jitter. > >> > >> BR, > >> > >> Alan > > > > The latency is pretty close to zero too, because it interrupts whatever > > else is happening. > > > > Some RTOSes call it Raw Interrupts or Unmanaged Interrupts. It doesn't > > really matter what you call it as long as the concept is understood. > > > > Cheers > > Nathan > > There is still latency, but the latency is due to hardware only: The > software introduces zero ADDITIONAL latency. > > There is still some jitter way down in the nanosecond level. Jitter in > hardware interrupt response is naturally since interrupts are processed > only at instruction boundaries. This quantization introduces a small > hardware jitter. The software introduces zero ADDITIONAL jitter. > > Unmanaged interrupts is the name used by the Nucleus OS and is a pretty > good name. Zero latency and zero jitter are okay names if you remember > the refer only to timing errors introduced by software. > > >
