Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux 2.6 not a latency panacea?

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux 2.6 not a latency panacea?
From: Takashi Iwai (tiwai_AT_suse.de)
Date: Thu Aug 14 2003 - 16:59:26 EEST


At Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:48:40 +0200,
Christian Henz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > I am distressed. It was my understanding that the 2.5/2.6 kernel branch
> > was undergoing significant scheduler and latency work, and that 2.6
> > would eliminate the kernel from the list of obstacles of low-latency on
> > Linux. It will have the preemptable kernel patch, the new scheduler,
> > and all of Ingo Molnar's low-latency work. Claims were being thrown
> > around that 2.6 would be the lowest-latency operating system on the planet.
> >
> > So how is it that we're in the 2.6.0-test series and people are
> > complaining about audio skipping in **XMMS**, which uses three second
> > buffers by default?? If people are getting skips from high-latency
> > playback, what hope is there for low-latency audio? A series of patches
> > are coming from both Ingo and Con Kolivas attempting to address this,
> > but the fact they are just now throwing around potential solutions
> > erodes at my faith that they really understand the problem or how to
> > solve it.
> >
> > Is 2.6.x going to be suitable for low-latency (or even reliable
> > high-latency) audio? Or is it going to be more of the same: patching
> > the kernel, tweaking parameters, reading magical incantations, and
> > hoping for the best?
> >
> > Reassure me please!
> >
> > Josh
> >
>
> I also found 2.6.0-test[123] to be less responsive than 2.4.x-ll, or even stock 2.4.x. I've also experienced XMMS dropouts under load (for example compiling Muse)
>
> Some behaviour I've noticed is that under heavy load the desktop/audio doesn't freeze for a certain block of time, but rather in short (~2 seconds) intervalls...

this should have been imporved significantly in -mm tree.
even reducing the min/max timeslices would help a lot. the default
values look too large for desktop users...

Takashi


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Aug 14 2003 - 17:16:37 EEST