Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264801AbTFBRPm (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:15:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264802AbTFBRPm (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:15:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60360 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264801AbTFBRPh (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:15:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:28:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Tom Sightler Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , LKML Subject: Re: Strange load issues with 2.5.69/70 in both -mm and -bk trees. In-Reply-To: <1054567968.3545.26.camel@iso-8590-lx.zeusinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 985 Lines: 25 On 2 Jun 2003, Tom Sightler wrote: > I think this may be because wine uses a client/server model. There is > the wine client which runs the actual applications, but they seem to > share the core wineserver process which seems to be responsible for > actually mixing and generating the sound output. Renicing the 'wine' > (frontend) process give the 'wineserver' (backend) process more CPU time > to actually get the sound out. yes, this is an accurate description of the wineserver model. to prove this point, could you try and renice wineserver to -10 (as root) - does that fix the latency issues still? (if this doesnt then it could be the foreground process starving yet another process - we have to find out which one.) 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/