[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:0.027 / U:14.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site