Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:34:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Bill Huey <bhuey@lnxw.com>, Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>,
       Michal Schmidt <xschmi00@stud.feec.vutbr.cz>,
       Karsten Wiese <annabellesgarden@yahoo.de>,
       jackit-devel <jackit-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4]
Message-ID: <20041030113441.GA27046@elte.hu>
References: <20041029211112.GA9836@elte.hu> <200410300106.i9U16fXJ010366@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200410300106.i9U16fXJ010366@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 978
Lines: 24


* Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:

> IIRC, Rui was running with -p128, which at 48000kHz is 2600usecs (and
> longer at 44100kHz). If the maximum process cycle was on the order of
> 1500usecs, that leaves nearly 1ms until the next interrupt is due.
> Unless jackd was held up between computing the process cycle time and
> entering poll, it doesn't seem that the process cycle ever gets close
> to the interrupt interval duration.

yeah, i'd agree with this, there must be something else going on.

> So I don't think that delays caused *during* jackd's processing cycle
> are involved here. However, I agree that your suggestion to check for
> this before computing max_delay is probably wise in general.

yep.

	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/