This test tool, cyclictest, is yielding abysmal results. The latency response times for a couple of the CPUs out of the 4 we know about in the H5 are over 4.7 msecs. These numbers should be under 100 usecs as a maximum.
So far I have tried both the friendlyarm kernel and one I built froma 5.1 mainline. Both yield similar results. And there is large amounts of jitter also. Something is terribly wrong, either with the hardware or with one or more of the drivers.
Next I will try Armbian, but the problem I have with Armbian is finding the H5 kernel configuration options they use.
root@NanoPi-NEO-Plus2:/etc# cyclictest --mlockall --smp --priority=80 --interval=200 --distance=0
# /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.01 0.05 0.01 1/104 1366
T: 0 ( 1363) P:80 I:200 C: 153777 Min: 5 Act: 59 Avg: 21 Max: 4799
T: 1 ( 1364) P:80 I:200 C: 153874 Min: 5 Act: 21 Avg: 21 Max: 1627
T: 2 ( 1365) P:80 I:200 C: 153686 Min: 4 Act: 20 Avg: 20 Max: 4790
T: 3 ( 1366) P:80 I:200 C: 153703 Min: 4 Act: 27 Avg: 20 Max: 1257
The above is for the stock image that comes on the eMMC out of the box.
So far I have tried both the friendlyarm kernel and one I built froma 5.1 mainline. Both yield similar results. And there is large amounts of jitter also. Something is terribly wrong, either with the hardware or with one or more of the drivers.
Next I will try Armbian, but the problem I have with Armbian is finding the H5 kernel configuration options they use.
root@NanoPi-NEO-Plus2:/etc# cyclictest --mlockall --smp --priority=80 --interval=200 --distance=0
# /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.01 0.05 0.01 1/104 1366
T: 0 ( 1363) P:80 I:200 C: 153777 Min: 5 Act: 59 Avg: 21 Max: 4799
T: 1 ( 1364) P:80 I:200 C: 153874 Min: 5 Act: 21 Avg: 21 Max: 1627
T: 2 ( 1365) P:80 I:200 C: 153686 Min: 4 Act: 20 Avg: 20 Max: 4790
T: 3 ( 1366) P:80 I:200 C: 153703 Min: 4 Act: 27 Avg: 20 Max: 1257
The above is for the stock image that comes on the eMMC out of the box.