From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261515AbVGDIyg (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 04:54:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261536AbVGDIyg (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 04:54:36 -0400 Received: from unused.mind.net ([69.9.134.98]:27361 "EHLO echo.lysdexia.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261515AbVGDIy2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 04:54:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 01:53:20 -0700 (PDT) From: William Weston X-X-Sender: weston@echo.lysdexia.org To: Lee Revell cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-24 In-Reply-To: <1120269723.12256.11.camel@mindpipe> Message-ID: References: <200506281927.43959.annabellesgarden@yahoo.de> <200506301952.22022.annabellesgarden@yahoo.de> <20050630205029.GB1824@elte.hu> <200507010027.33079.annabellesgarden@yahoo.de> <20050701071850.GA18926@elte.hu> <1120269723.12256.11.camel@mindpipe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 18:46 -0700, William Weston wrote: > > FWIW, I'm still seeing the SMT scheduling? meltdown issues with > > -50-42. > > Running two instances of 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null bs=65536' > > instead > > of 'burnP6' results in the same behavior. Here's a quick recap: > > > > - Start (or login to ) X. > > - Start an X app that constantly updates the screen, like wmcube, or > > vlc. > > Which video driver is X using? What nice value is the X server running > at? Hardware is Intel 82865G (integrated) with DRM i915 1.1.0 20040405 and xorg-3.8.2 i810 driver, running at nice 0, priority 15. Should I bump the priority up? To realtime? > Does adding: > > Option "NoAccel" > > to the Device section of your X config file make any difference? Disabling the dri and drm modules didn't help. I'll turn on NoAccel when I'm back in the office on Tuesday. > (on most systems X is the only thing besides the kernel that can access > hardware directly, which can cause problems) So would running X through the framebuffer device be the way to go for stability under realtime? It's been a couple years since I've used fb. --ww