Re: [linux-audio-dev] lets go compile ! [was: lowish-latency patch and toolchain]

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] lets go compile ! [was: lowish-latency patch and toolchain]
From: Jörn Nettingsmeier (nettings_AT_folkwang.uni-essen.de)
Date: Tue Jul 11 2000 - 14:22:15 EEST


hello andrew !

Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
> >
> > Now the latency jumped from 2.3 ms to 7 ms
>
> 7 ms was when starting the X server.
>
> With "typical workloads" I'm currently showing the following latency
> distribution:
>
> 0-1 msec 99.994%
> 1-2 msec 0.003%
> 2-3 msec 0.002%
> 4-5 msec 0.001%
>
> This is with the previously-posted six conditional_schedule()s and a
> kinder, gentler zap_page_range().
>
> Progress is currently bogged down chasing irrelevant bogosity in the
> memory manager. Unless magic happens I'll shelve that and get something
> less ambitious out.
>
> But audio guys, please comprehend this: there is _no point_ in
> submitting this work for inclusion unless you can stand in front of
> Linus with your hands on your hearts and say "This works for us".
>
> I am quite mystified as to why you're putting so much effort into joint
> letters and such, and so little into testing a purported solution. I've
> had two emails which said "cool for me", an apology from Paul B-D who is
> travelling and that's all.

you're right. let's go test this thing.
 
> For your convenience I have attached here Saturday's patch against
> 2.4.0-test3-pre4. Go compile.

thanks for your work, andrew.

regards,

jörn
 

ps: i have only this one production box, as will most audio people.
while we're doing a lot of application testing, these kernel patches
are a lot more complicated for us to do. i'm certainly willing to
keep up with the latest patches, but please acknowledge it's a whole
lot more painful for me than for experienced kernel wizards with a
dedicated kernel dev box.

btw: is there any web resource on how to restructure one's system to
have a working fallback w/o fuss while being able to play with the
latest dev kernels plus the corresponding userspace upgrades
(preferably w/o repartitioning) ? i went through having 2.0 and 2.2
in parallel for some weeks and it gave me a headache.

-- 
Jörn Nettingsmeier     
Kurfürstenstr. 49        
45138 Essen, Germany      
http://www.folkwang.uni-essen.de/~nettings/


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 14:06:04 EEST