From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262996AbUEWVDQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 17:03:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263565AbUEWVDQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 17:03:16 -0400 Received: from ktown.kde.org ([131.246.103.200]:22467 "HELO ktown.kde.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262996AbUEWVDP (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 17:03:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 23:03:13 +0200 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: tvtime and the Linux 2.6 scheduler Message-ID: <20040523210313.GA16310@ugly.local> Mail-Followup-To: Kernel Mailing List References: <20040523154859.GC22399@dumbterm.net> <200405240254.20171.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405240254.20171.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:54:19AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > Your example of poor performance is one when the cpu performance is > marginal to get exactly 30 fps processed and on the screen. The cpu > overhead in 2.6 is slightly higher than 2.4 so a borderline case may > be just pushed over. > "his" example is in fact mine. 2.4 ghz chew 25 fps. the total cpu load is at 30-40% (depending on the selected deinterlacer algorithm). > A program running as sched_fifo it will preempt absolutely everything > regardless of how it behaves. > errm ... right. i paid too little attention to this "tiny" detail. *blush* now i hacked tvtime to simply ignore v4l2 ... and guess what? it works ... so the new theory is, that tvtime has some problem with v4l2 input buffering ... greetings -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.