Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P0 | | From | Lee Revell <> | | Date | Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:15:34 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 23:14, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote: > > > > i've attached mlock-test2.cc that should test this theory. The code > > > breaks up the mlock-ed region into 8 equal pieces and does mlock() on > > > them separately. It's basically a lock-break done in user-space. Does > > > this change the nature of xruns? > > > > This does change the xruns. I have to `mlock-test2 8000' to produce > > any xrun at all, and that only produces a 2-300 usec xrun. With > > mlockall-test the threshold to produce an xrun was ~1500. > > did you try mlock-test.cc too? Just to make sure that mlock-test.cc is > equivalent to mlockall-test.cc. >
That attachment was also missing.
Lee
- 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/
|  |