Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Jackit-devel] Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4] | From | "Jack O'Quin" <> | Date | 26 Nov 2004 11:16:38 -0600 |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> 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.
Added the test Ingo suggests plus a new counter (poll_late) to CVS, JACK version 0.99.13. -- joq - 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/
| |