Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] IRQ rotation
From: Juan Linietsky (coding_AT_reduz.com.ar)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 07:26:17 EET
On Friday 05 March 2004 16:03, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:30:58PM +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > This really mattered? I'm honestly DEEPLY surprised, and a bit
> > > sceptical. IRQ priority will only matter AT ALL if you are in a
> > > constant state of interrupt, or your IRQ handlers are painfully slow,
> > > neither of which should be true.
> >
> > Heres /proc/interrupts after ~3 hours of uptime.
> >
> > CPU0
> > 0: 12578480 XT-PIC timer
> > 1: 22347 XT-PIC keyboard
> > 2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
> > 5: 0 XT-PIC Maestro3
> > 8: 1 XT-PIC rtc
> > 10: 58915 XT-PIC usb-uhci, ohci1394, eth0, Texas
> > Instruments PCI4451 PC card Cardbus Controller, Texas Instruments PCI4451
> > PC card Cardbus Controller (#2)
> > 11: 774663 XT-PIC nvidia
> > 12: 28909 XT-PIC PS/2 Mouse
> > 14: 16635 XT-PIC ide0
> > NMI: 0
> > ERR: 0
> >
> > Everything beats the soundcard, including the video drivers.
>
> It shows that your soundcard had ZERO interrupts. I have trouble believing
> that over the course of THREE HOURS it tried and tried and could not get a
> single interrupt through. Is that what you're saying?
The soundcard having zero interrupts seems strange to me..
unless he didnt use it at all?
> This does not show a particularly high interrupt load, either. It does
> show that you get about 70 video interrupts per second (ask nvidia!)
That's probably the vblank interrupt, used to sync the contents
of the screen to avoid "paging" effect.. (though doesnt seem
like xfree honors it hehe).. so i guess that can be considered normal too..
reduz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 07:10:23 EET