Draw Lockup (was Performer Woes)

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Jan Barglowski (jan++at++archimedes.vislab.navy.mil)
Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:59:45 -0800 (PST)

Rémi Arnaud wrote:
> > Background:
> > We upgraded from 1 to 3 Pipes on our iR. 2Gb RAM, Iris 6.2, and
> > Performer 2.1. Processor locking and non-degrading priorities via
> > the pfu calls worked well under 1 pipe, but now we cannot lock down
> > the draw process without locking up (hard) the entire machine!
>
> Which means you are going from 1 draw process to 3 draw process (and
> also from 1 cull to 3 culls if you run APP_CULL_DRAW).
>
> So the question is: do you have enough CPUs to handle 3 pipes with 3 draw
> processes locked ?

We have 16 processors, and I am currently locking them individually
by number. However, perfly (which doesn't lock by number, but by
next available?) crashes as well. It's only when the -D option in
perfly is used that causes the lockup.

jan

-- 
Jan Anthony Barglowski	              jan++at++chinalake.navy.mil
Real-time Computer Graphics           http://www1.ridgecrest.ca.us/~jan
Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake  (619) 927-1057
===================================List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions:  info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests:  info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:56:08 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.