From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4052104E.8020308@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:32:30 -0800 From: Paolo Mantegazza MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Adeos-main] 260 uSec latency and no idea why References: <200403120744.i2C7iI725496@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <200403120744.i2C7iI725496@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: adeos-main-admin@domain.hid Errors-To: adeos-main-admin@domain.hid List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussion about Adeos List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Der Herr Hofrat Cc: Dirk Roloff , adeos-main@gna.org Der Herr Hofrat wrote: > > It is a software layer - no hardware prhibiting this - so if > you have a X-server doing cli/sti in the driver or a binary driver that > does somthing like that - they adeos can't stop it. > This is true also. But it is really annoying to verify it. In suspicion of such an event I tried to disassamble a few drivers and then look for cli/sti. It turned out there were in asm but then they where not there in . In fact it was the disassambler that misunderstood FA/FB in disassembling a switch table. Then I concluded that it is not a simple matter of objdumping and seeing so gave up. A further example: I've a nice new ATHLON machine that in alpha mode shows very low latencies under high Linux load, but as I'm in X they skyrockets to msecs, and that happens with both RTAI on ADEOS and on its old legacy RTHAL. Yours is the first case I step on such a problem with Celerons. Paolo.