[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] voluntary-preempt-
On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 07:56, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i've uploaded the -P0 patch:
> those who had APIC (and USB, under SMP) problems under previous
> versions, are the problems still present in -P0?

The mlockall issue is still not resolved; however, I did manage to get a
trace, which was probably not possible before because some higher
latency but lower frequency event was overwriting /proc/latency_trace.
So, maybe mlockall does cause xruns by having many shorter, but long
enough to be problematic, non-preemptible sections.

Also it seems that extract_entropy still causes high latencies, even
though a call to preempt_schedule was added. I looked at the code in
random.c a bit and this strikes me as an area where the algorithm could
be improved, rather than adding a scheduling point. Do we really need
*that* much entropy, right then? And if so, isn't there a zero-copy


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 14:05    [W:0.375 / U:3.420 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site