After re-reading my own message, I guess the other solution is just drop the fb and go out the video card, that way I could keep smp in the kernel. Hmmm.....I was thinking of doing this anyway as I was thinking of upgrading the whole system to an HD firewire capture solution, or maybe a dual ivtv / firewire capture (so I'd have my choice) and single output via video card.

Hmmmmmmmmmm................

Regards, Paul

Paul Check wrote:
But, I have tried 0.2.0rc3g and 0.3.0f (?) and the problems are actually worse, as then the ivtv-fb is even less stable. Note that this is the difference between our machiens (at least your pvr250...I'm not familiar with the 500). Without the ivtv-fb, everything works fine for me too. It's just the fb on the pvr350 that is causing problems.

Another poster suggested it is indeed SMP..I'll play around with it and report back. But, it would really be a bummer to have to run non-smp to get 100% stable performance on the fb. Not sure I'd make that trade-off. Hopefully I don't have to?!

Regards, Paul

Jason Knisley wrote:
well, that's a heck of an old version of ivtv. I have
a an SMT/SMP enabled kernel with hyperthreading and a
dual Xeon 2.5g board on the production machine (the
one with the 250, not the 500) and things generally
work for nearly a week before I need to restart. (Some
weird sound errors of late.. Maybe I should update
that one to a newer ivtv than 0.3.2t)

Thanks,
Jason


--- "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  
| From: Paul Check <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

| I'm getting DMA erros on my system with various
versions of ivtv and firmware.
| Currently I'm working with version 0.1.9 of the
ivtv driver with firmware
| pvr250_18_22037.exe (0.2.0rc3g gives me headaches
with ivtv-fb). All the
| problems I've had with ivtv (any version) seem to
relate to DMA errors. I'm
| running 2.4.26 on a dual Xeon (HT enabled too)
Supermicro X5DA8 motherboard
| with seagate scsi disks, all firmware up to date.

WARNING: PURE SUPPOSITION.

I've seen it suggested that ivtv didn't work with
preemption enabled.



    
<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01614.html>
  
	Jim Reese wrote:
	have had no trouble with both Fedora 2 and 3 as
long as you
	recompile the kernel without REGPARM, 4KSTACKS and
	pre-emption.

I doubt that REGPARM is a problem, but am not sure. 
There was a
report on the list that REGPARM was not a problem.

4KSTACKS is a problem, but several patches
(including one from me)
claim to solve that problem.

That leaves pre-emption: is it a problem?

If this is in fact the case, it is very likely that
ivtv would not
work with HT enabled and used by an SMP kernel.  The
reason is that
preemption takes advantage of the same locking
mechanisms as SMP, and
HT is a kind of SMP.

This would mean that ivtv probably does not have
sufficient locking
protecting resources that might be shared between
different threads of
control in kernel code.

If you run a non-SMP kernel without preemption
enabled, do you get the
same problem?  You may have to configure and build
your own kernel to
answer that question.

Hugh Redelmeier
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  voice: +1 416 482-8253



    
-------------------------------------------------------
  
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT
Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype.
Start reading now.

    
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
  
_______________________________________________
ivtv-devel mailing list
[email protected]

    
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ivtv-devel
  



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
ivtv-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ivtv-devel

  

Reply via email to