Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4] | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:35:54 +0200 |
| |
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/
| |