On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:18:35AM -0500, Frank Brickle wrote:
> Eric Blossom wrote:
>
> >Using LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19 effectively forces the old (pre-NPTL)
> >behavior, which means that acquiring an uncontested mutex requires a
> >trip to the kernel. I believe it also means that mutexes won't w
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:55:55AM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 March 2006 14:33, Eric Blossom wrote:
> > I was burned by ext3 with regard to streaming disk throughput.
> > I ended up remounting the relevant filesystem as ext2 to avoid the
> > problem. I have no info regarding CPU an
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 14:33, Eric Blossom wrote:
> I was burned by ext3 with regard to streaming disk throughput.
> I ended up remounting the relevant filesystem as ext2 to avoid the
> problem. I have no info regarding CPU and/or preemption issues during
> journal posting. If we never go to
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 12:24:30AM +0100, Stephane Fillod wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:26:07AM -0800, Eric Blossom wrote:
>
> I assume you meant 'us' (micro-second), and not micro sample or micro
> Siemens :-)
Definitely micro Siemens!
> Talking about getting to the 32us area, this is wha
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:26:07AM -0800, Eric Blossom wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:18:35AM -0500, Frank Brickle wrote:
> > Eric Blossom wrote:
> >
> > >Using LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19 effectively forces the old (pre-NPTL)
> > >behavior, which means that acquiring an uncontested mutex require
Eric Blossom wrote:
...
I ended up remounting the relevant filesystem as ext2 to avoid the
problem...If we never go to the disk, it might not matter at
all.
> ...
It's been a long time since I looked at these pages:
http://ardour.org/requirements.php
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/soft
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:52:14PM -0500, Frank Brickle wrote:
> Eric Blossom wrote:
>
> >...
> >I ended up remounting the relevant filesystem as ext2 to avoid the
> >problem...If we never go to the disk, it might not matter at
> >all.
> > ...
>
> It's been a long time since I looked at these pag
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:59:49PM -0500, Robert McGwier wrote:
> It was **specifically* * the Reiserfs that ran us away from it to the
> less troublesome (at the time) EXT3. Isn't XFS deprecated because of
> all the problems associated with it? I might be wrong but that is what I
> recall.
>
It was **specifically* * the Reiserfs that ran us away from it to the
less troublesome (at the time) EXT3. Isn't XFS deprecated because of
all the problems associated with it? I might be wrong but that is what I
recall.
Bob
-- snip, Eric wants to leave EXT3 for ReiserFS -
--
AM
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:46:54AM -0500, Frank Brickle wrote:
> Eric Blossom wrote:
>
> >>Bottom line, it hasn't actually been proved that running SCHED_FIFO will
> >>squash the existing latency and continuity problems, so I'm not at all
> >>sure much is missing without that capability.
> >
> >
Eric Blossom wrote:
Bottom line, it hasn't actually been proved that running SCHED_FIFO will
squash the existing latency and continuity problems, so I'm not at all
sure much is missing without that capability.
Frank, is this a statement or a question?
It's a statement. I don't have any rea
Eric Blossom wrote:
Using LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19 effectively forces the old (pre-NPTL)
behavior, which means that acquiring an uncontested mutex requires a
trip to the kernel. I believe it also means that mutexes won't work
in shared memory across process boundaries. Those seem like total
los
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:25:13AM +0100, Stephane Fillod wrote:
>
> > On 2/26/06, Eric Blossom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There is some fairly straight-forward work that can be done to reduce
> > > the latency of the user mode code, and that's probably a good first
> > > step. This would a
13 matches
Mail list logo
