Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:26:52 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P0 |
| |
* Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 22:58, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > if it doesnt change the xruns then it shows that it's not the locking of > > make_pages_present() that interacts with jackd, but it's what it does > > that interacts with it (or with the audio driver). > > > > assuming the DMA-starvation theory isnt excluded via mlock-test2.c: > > Sorry, you lost me here. Does the behavior of mlock-test2 point to > the locking of make_pages_present interfering with jackd, or with the > audio driver?
it's rather pointing in the direction of locking, away from DMA issues. Any DMA issue should not depend if we do the activity in 8 chunks or in one go. Locking on the other hand depends on the length of a single chunk, not on the length of the total activity.
Ingo - 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/
| |