Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] those latency numbers
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 05:46:52 EET
>BTW: what does the performance of jack in "plugin mode" vs "threads" mode
>look like. Is the kernel performing well (in terms of latency) even with
>dozen of lowlat threads running ?
there is no "threads" mode unless you mean "IPC" mode. that works fine
at a hardware interrupt time of 64 frames @ 48kHz with at least 3
clients, at least on some user's machines (other people seem to have
problems that are hard to identify). "in process" ("plugin") mode is
close to zero overhead compared to writing a dedicated audio program.
>PS: I noticed that 2.4 kernels do have an rme96xx.o module for the
>Hammerfall. Do consumer OSS apps see the device as a regular /dev/dsp stereo
>device ? (are the spdif ins/outs the default ports ? (did non try the OSS
>module))
I don't want to comment much on Guenter's driver. I find it
regrettable that it was written, but I suppose it provides useful
functionality for people with a certain mindset about OSS and the
Hammerfall. Personally, I wish that driver did not exist. It also
doesn't work (from a code inspection) in the way that a naive user
might expect when it comes to accessing multiple "devices". If I was
in therapy right now, I'd probably admit that I don't like the fact
that Guenter managed to get the OSS API to support a card that I've
claimed OSS cannot support.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 05:36:03 EET