ttp://josh.trancesoftware.com/linux/linux_cpu_scheduler.pdf
] http://kerneltrap.org/node/5411
Thanks again.
Satisfied Open Source Fan
- Original Message
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Open Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; linux-usb-devel@lists.sour
ing. I am using
Yahoo Mail Beta which may be the cause for this
consternation. It is a convenient way to anonymize though.
- Original Message
From: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Open Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: WolfgangMües <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; linux-usb-deve
lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:09:03 AM
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] USB performance bug since kernel 2.6.13
(CRITICAL???)
On Saturday 14 October 2006 18:40, Open Source wrote:
> I'm not so sure about that. Once the interrupt is finished being
> serviced,
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 11:53:35 PM
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] USB performance bug since kernel 2.6.13
(CRITICAL???)
On Saturday 14 October 2006 01:02, Open Source wrote:
> Either the problem is in the ehci code or in devio.c
would wake up any
blocked processes rather than sitting idle for 4 ms.
In any case, I am open to the fact it may not be
USB per se. We'll see what strace says.
As always, thanks for the suggestions. Stay tuned
- Original Message
From: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
oes
wake up immediatley, then the delay is elsewhere and probably
has nothing to do with kernel mode versus user mode issues.
Thanks again.
- Original Message
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Open Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; linux
what is causing it. As it stands it doesn't
seem like even the experts know exactly where this
delay is being caused.
Thanks.
- Original Message
From: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Open Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: WolfgangMües <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; linux-u
e kernel 2.6.13
(CRITICAL???)
On Friday 13 October 2006 19:20, Open Source wrote:
> Alan -- yes, I understand the ability to increase throughput
> by transfering more bytes and I am definitely able to see
> better overall throughput when increasing the number
> of bytes per transa
: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Open Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:56:31 AM
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] USB performance bug since kernel 2.6.13
(CRITICAL???)
[FYI, it would make thi
erwise, Linux is not competitive with Microsoft Windows in this
regard!
I'll try a recompile and report back. In the meantime, if anyone else has any
ideas, please let me know!
Gopal
- Original Message
From: Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Open Source <[EMA
f the box than Linux when
it comes to this particular type of USB usage. We can't have that can we? :-)
Linux used to be fast and the only difference with my recent experiences is the
kernel version.
Best regards,
Still Beleagered Open Source Fan
- Original Message
From: Lee Reve
(Resending because [EMAIL PROTECTED] bounced right back to me. Sorry for the
multiple messages!)
- Forwarded Message
From: Open Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:21:56 PM
Subject: USB performance bug
12 matches
Mail list logo
