6 Mar
2004
6 Mar
'04
1:14 a.m.
On Friday 05 March 2004 16:03, Tim Hockin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:30:58PM +0000, Steve Harris
wrote:
It shows that your soundcard had ZERO interrupts. I have trouble believing
that over the course of THREE HOURS it tried and tried and could not get a
single interrupt through. Is that what you're saying?
The soundcard having zero interrupts seems strange to me..
unless he didnt use it at all?
This
really mattered? I'm honestly DEEPLY surprised, and a bit
sceptical. IRQ priority will only matter AT ALL if you are in a
constant state of interrupt, or your IRQ handlers are painfully slow,
neither of which should be true.
Heres /proc/interrupts after ~3 hours of uptime.
CPU0
0: 12578480 XT-PIC timer
1: 22347 XT-PIC keyboard
2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
5: 0 XT-PIC Maestro3
8: 1 XT-PIC rtc
10: 58915 XT-PIC usb-uhci, ohci1394, eth0, Texas
Instruments PCI4451 PC card Cardbus Controller, Texas Instruments PCI4451
PC card Cardbus Controller (#2)
11: 774663 XT-PIC nvidia
12: 28909 XT-PIC PS/2 Mouse
14: 16635 XT-PIC ide0
NMI: 0
ERR: 0
Everything beats the soundcard, including the video drivers. This does not show a particularly high interrupt load,
either. It does
show that you get about 70 video interrupts per second (ask nvidia!)
That's probably the vblank interrupt, used to sync the contents
of the screen to avoid "paging" effect.. (though doesnt seem
like xfree honors it hehe).. so i guess that can be considered normal too..
reduz