Re: [Jackit-devel] Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4]

[Jack O'Quin]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:

> if it's possible to 'silently' overrun the next due interrupt (somewhat,
> but not large enough overrun to cause a hard ALSA xrun) then the
> processing delay will i believe be accounted as a 'wakeup delay'. In
> that case to make the delayed_usecs value truly accurate, i'd at least
> add this:
> 
>                 poll_enter = jack_get_microseconds ();
> 
> 		if (poll_enter > driver->poll_next) {
> 			/*
> 			 * This processing cycle got delayed over
> 			 * the next due interrupt! Do not account this
> 			 * as a wakeup delay:
> 			 */
> 			driver->poll_next = 0;
> 		}
> 
> but i'd also suggest to put in a counter into that branch so that this
> condition doesnt get lost. 

Added the test Ingo suggests plus a new counter (poll_late) to CVS,
JACK version 0.99.13.
-- 
  joq
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/