From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265462AbUHaR1J (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:27:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265139AbUHaRY6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:24:58 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:58051 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265701AbUHaRUb (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:20:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q5 From: Lee Revell To: Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com Cc: Ingo Molnar , "K.R. Foley" , linux-kernel , Felipe Alfaro Solana , Daniel Schmitt , alsa-devel In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093972819.5403.8.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:20:19 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 11:17, Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com wrote: > >I will be running some additional tests > >- reducing preempt_max_latency > >- running with sortirq and hardirq_preemption=0 > >to see if these uncover any further problems. > > #1 - audio driver > latency: 621 us, entries: 28 (28) > ----------------- > | task: latencytest/11492, uid:0 nice:0 policy:1 rt_prio:99 > ----------------- > => started at: snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare+0x74/0x180 > => ended at: snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare+0x11d/0x180 > =======> > 00000001 0.000ms (+0.000ms): snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare > (snd_pcm_do_prepare) > 00000001 0.014ms (+0.014ms): snd_es1371_dac1_rate > (snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare) > 00000001 0.014ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.562ms (+0.548ms): snd_es1371_src_read (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.562ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_read) > 00000001 0.578ms (+0.015ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_read) > 00000001 0.585ms (+0.006ms): snd_es1371_src_write (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.585ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_write) > 00000001 0.601ms (+0.015ms): snd_es1371_src_write (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.601ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_write) > 00000001 0.602ms (+0.001ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.616ms (+0.013ms): smp_apic_timer_interrupt > (snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare) > > or > > latency: 663 us, entries: 41 (41) > ----------------- > | task: latencytest/11492, uid:0 nice:0 policy:1 rt_prio:99 > ----------------- > => started at: snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare+0x74/0x180 > => ended at: snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare+0x11d/0x180 > =======> > 00000001 0.000ms (+0.000ms): snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare > (snd_pcm_do_prepare) > 00000001 0.004ms (+0.004ms): snd_es1371_dac1_rate > (snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare) > 00000001 0.005ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.006ms (+0.001ms): snd_es1371_src_read (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.006ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_read) > 00000001 0.019ms (+0.012ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_read) > 00000001 0.607ms (+0.588ms): snd_es1371_src_write (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.608ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_write) > 00000001 0.624ms (+0.016ms): snd_es1371_src_write (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.624ms (+0.000ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_src_write) > 00000001 0.626ms (+0.001ms): snd_es1371_wait_src_ready > (snd_es1371_dac1_rate) > 00000001 0.639ms (+0.013ms): smp_apic_timer_interrupt > (snd_ensoniq_playback1_prepare) Hmm, looks like the es1371 takes ~0.5 ms to set the DAC rate. The ALSA team would probably be able to help. Takashi, any ideas? Lee