Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-19 Thread Karsten Wiese
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: > Karsten Wiese wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: > >> That seems fishy. What is your value of HZ and what is the timeout value > >> that was passed in the bad case? > > > > HZ set to 250, timeout to 4ms. > >

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-19 Thread Karsten Wiese
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: Karsten Wiese wrote: Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: That seems fishy. What is your value of HZ and what is the timeout value that was passed in the bad case? HZ set to 250, timeout to 4ms. Time spent in

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Robert Hancock
Karsten Wiese wrote: Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: That seems fishy. What is your value of HZ and what is the timeout value that was passed in the bad case? HZ set to 250, timeout to 4ms. Time spent in poll() taken by clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, ) before and after

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Karsten Wiese
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: > > That seems fishy. What is your value of HZ and what is the timeout value > that was passed in the bad case? HZ set to 250, timeout to 4ms. Time spent in poll() taken by clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, ) before and after poll()call: i.e

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Robert Hancock
Karsten Wiese wrote: Hi, while playing with jackd on 2.6.24-rcx, I found poll() timing out too early. That is: earlier than its timeout argument specified. Setting poll()'s timeout argument to "required timeout" + "1 jiffy in ms" fixed it. Patch below should fix it too. Correct? Untested.

[RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Karsten Wiese
Hi, while playing with jackd on 2.6.24-rcx, I found poll() timing out too early. That is: earlier than its timeout argument specified. Setting poll()'s timeout argument to "required timeout" + "1 jiffy in ms" fixed it. Patch below should fix it too. Correct? Untested. Otherwise 2.6.24-rc5 ticks

[RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Karsten Wiese
Hi, while playing with jackd on 2.6.24-rcx, I found poll() timing out too early. That is: earlier than its timeout argument specified. Setting poll()'s timeout argument to required timeout + 1 jiffy in ms fixed it. Patch below should fix it too. Correct? Untested. Otherwise 2.6.24-rc5 ticks just

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Robert Hancock
Karsten Wiese wrote: Hi, while playing with jackd on 2.6.24-rcx, I found poll() timing out too early. That is: earlier than its timeout argument specified. Setting poll()'s timeout argument to required timeout + 1 jiffy in ms fixed it. Patch below should fix it too. Correct? Untested. Otherwise

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Karsten Wiese
Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: That seems fishy. What is your value of HZ and what is the timeout value that was passed in the bad case? HZ set to 250, timeout to 4ms. Time spent in poll() taken by clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, time) before and after poll()call: i.e

Re: [RFC/PATCH] 2.6.24-rcx: Make sys_poll() wait at least timeout ms

2007-12-18 Thread Robert Hancock
Karsten Wiese wrote: Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007 schrieb Robert Hancock: That seems fishy. What is your value of HZ and what is the timeout value that was passed in the bad case? HZ set to 250, timeout to 4ms. Time spent in poll() taken by clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, time) before and