Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] another kernel patch?
From: Jack O'Quin (joq_AT_io.com)
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 06:03:09 EET
Roger Larsson <roger.larsson_AT_norran.net> writes:
> > That's right. But, Paul and I have been working closely with this and
> > don't have much faith in the correctness of the 2.4 scheduler.
>
> Have you told kernel developers about this?
> This can be rather critical in embedded systems.
No. It's rather difficult to prove. There's no "smoking gun".
But, I have no reason to believe that it works correctly, and I
suspect that it probably does not.
> > What problem does this solve?
>
> It will better match what you think you do.
>
> When jackd writes in the FIFO - expect client to start.
> Jackd waits for baton - wait for client to finish.
>
> But with jackd as highest priority:
> Jackd writes to FIFO - nothing will happen for client.
> Jackd _waits_ for baton - now client start, processes, finishes.
I don't see why this is a problem. All this has to happen for every
cycle, anyway. What difference does it make? And, why do you think we
don't understand this?
-- joq
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 30 2003 - 06:04:30 EET