lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4]
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 15:33 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
    > On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 10:02 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > I know that Jackd does alot of precautions
    > > to avoid unintentional scheduling (mlockall, the use of SCHED_FIFO),
    > > but are you absolutely sure it doesnt happen? This scenario could be
    > > excluded by measuring the time Jackd calls poll(), and comparing it
    > > to the expected value. [Or is this value already included in the
    > > stats Rui collected? Maybe the "Maximum Process Cycle" value?]
    >
    > Yes, this is already accounted for in the 'Maximum Process Cycle' value.
    > This measures the time between returning from poll() and entering it
    > again. I will try to add some instrumentation to jackd and test this
    > weekend. I do agree that it could be a jackd bug; this would not be the
    > first time the VP patches exposed bugs in other apps.
    >

    Can you check out, whether the memory is getting low when you are doing
    this tests ? The VM code has a serious problem, which might be related
    to those latencies.

    tglx


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:3.240 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site