From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263883AbTLTLUR (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:20:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263886AbTLTLUR (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:20:17 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:16855 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263883AbTLTLUL (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:20:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:19:17 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Christian Meder Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6 vs 2.4 regression when running gnomemeeting Message-ID: <20031220111917.GA18267@elte.hu> References: <1071864709.1044.172.camel@localhost> <1071885178.1044.227.camel@localhost> <3FE3B61C.4070204@cyberone.com.au> <200312201355.08116.kernel@kolivas.org> <1071891168.1044.256.camel@localhost> <3FE3C6FC.7050401@cyberone.com.au> <1071893802.1363.21.camel@localhost> <3FE3D0CB.603@cyberone.com.au> <1071897314.1363.43.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1071897314.1363.43.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: SpamAssassin ELTE 1.0 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Christian Meder wrote: > That would leave me with two possibilities: 2.6. is doing something > different in the gnomemeeting case or gnomemeeting is doing something > different in the 2.6 case. A cursory look at the gnomemeeting sources > didn't give me the impression that it's doing anything which would be > affected by 2.6 deployment but I'll ask on the gnomemeeting-devel list > for advice. yep, i've looked at the source too and it doesnt do anything that changed in 2.6 from an interactivity POV. To analyze the precise workload that hurts gnomemeeting, could you try the following workload: main() { for (;;) sched_yield(); } and run 1-2 copies of such a load-generator - does it degrade gnome-meeting audio just as much as eg. a kernel compile does? as a next step, does the following degrade gnomemeeting?: main() { for (;;) ; } my guess would be that if the yield() one degrades interactivity too then this is unlikely to be somehow related to the scheduler proper. If it doesnt degrade but the simple non-yield loop above does, then it's probably something scheduling related in the sound architecture. (eg. use of yield() by some codepath of the sound drivers - although they dont seem to be doing anything like this.) If neither of these workloads degrades gnomemeeting, but a kernel-make does, then it's the interactivity estimator. Ingo