[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]

    * Paul Davis <> wrote:

    > [ I trimmed the CC: line because several people there are on
    > jackit-devel. ]
    > >> compiles and boots fine. no observable change in xrun behaviour though.
    > >
    > >ok, so there's something else going on as well - or i missed an ioctl.
    > i really don't think the ioctl's are relevant.
    > consider what will happen if jackd does make a system call that causes
    > a major delay (say, because of the BKL). we will get an xrun, yes, but
    > this will cause jackd to stop the audio interface and restart.
    > max_delay is not affected by this behaviour.

    indeed. I'd exclude the ioctls at this point. But:

    > as far as i can tell, the number reported by max_delay entirely (or
    > almost entirely) represents problems in kernel scheduling, specifically
    > with a combination of:
    > a) handling the audio interface interrupt in time.
    > b) marking the relevant jackd thread runnable
    > c) context switching back to the relevant jackd thread
    > things that jackd does once its running do not, it appear to me, have
    > any impact on max_delay, which is based on the simple observation:
    > "i was just woken, i expect to be awakened again in N usecs or
    > less.

    i dont yet see how this conclusion follows. Here's the poll() code

    poll_enter = jack_get_microseconds ();

    ret = poll (driver->pfd, nfds, driver->poll_timeout);


    if (extra_fd < 0) {
    if (driver->poll_next && poll_ret > driver->poll_next) {
    *delayed_usecs = poll_ret - driver->poll_next;
    driver->poll_last = poll_ret;
    driver->poll_next = poll_ret + driver->period_usecs;
    driver->engine->transport_cycle_start (driver->engine,

    is there a mechanism that ensures that the next poll() will be called
    _before_ ->poll_next? Do you get a real hard ALSA xrun in that case or
    something similar?

    if it's possible to 'silently' overrun the next due interrupt (somewhat,
    but not large enough overrun to cause a hard ALSA xrun) then the
    processing delay will i believe be accounted as a 'wakeup delay'. In
    that case to make the delayed_usecs value truly accurate, i'd at least
    add this:

    poll_enter = jack_get_microseconds ();

    if (poll_enter > driver->poll_next) {
    * This processing cycle got delayed over
    * the next due interrupt! Do not account this
    * as a wakeup delay:
    driver->poll_next = 0;

    but i'd also suggest to put in a counter into that branch so that this
    condition doesnt get lost. In fact the Maximum Process Cycle stat from

    >> Maximum Delay . . . . . . . . . 6904 921 721 usecs
    >> Maximum Process Cycle . . . . . 1449 1469 1590 usecs

    seems to suggest that there can be significant processing delays? (if
    Maximum Process Cycle is indeed the time spent from poll_ret to the next

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.033 / U:1.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site