>>>>> "Nagaraj" == Nagaraj <nagaraj@smartyantra.com> writes:
>> If you don't do a blocking call, you will never leave CPU and thus the
>> machine will not do anything else. Even kernel threads won't run - they
>> are high priority normal proceses, not realtime.
Nagaraj> No, what i mean is do not block in the kernel, do a sleep()
Nagaraj> in the application.
Nagaraj> for( buff_index = i = 0; i < xfer_count; i++, buff_index =
Nagaraj> (buff_index+1)%MAX_BUFFERS ) {
Nagaraj> sleep(1000);
Nagaraj> read( buff_fd, (mbuff +buff_index*BUFF_SIZE), BUFF_SIZE );
Nagaraj> }
Nagaraj> This i hv tested for a bandwidth of 20 Mbits/sec.
Nagaraj> I did that first with a blocking call, which resulted in frames being
Nagaraj> displayed with a delay ( due to the time between ur blocking call returning,
Nagaraj> and application refilling the buffer ).
Can you post a pseudocode of the variant with "blocking call" ? I'm
really tempted to call the above code bullshit and utter crap, but,
hey, one can always learn something new, maybe in fact it is a fine
example of programminng excelence and I'm a complete idiot.
Why the "blocking call" variant performed so poorly ?
~velco
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
