On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:26 -0400, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> I've certainly seen setitimer()-driven sleeping get much better
> response time on a kernel compiled to 1000 Hz (with preemption) over
> one compiled to 100 Hz (without preemption).
>
> >From this, I think it should be possible to say that one could read
> the audio card with smaller buffers more quickly, reducing latency.
> But I haven't made tests using audio, specifically, so I won't say
> more. I suspect the kernel driver and userspace API (ALSA or
> whatever) might need to be made to take advantage of it, but I know
> little about ALSA internals.
>
Audio doesn't use setitimer()-driven sleeping. It's interrupt-driven,
not timer-driven.
Lee
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 8/18/06, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 23:10 +0700, Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
> > > Is there any relationship between kernel HZ and audio timing? I imagine
> >
> > no. or almost none.
> >
> > recording audio doesn't involve using the system timer at all. the only
> > clock involved is the sample clock that drives the audio interface.
> >
> > having HZ set too high could conceivably make the system more likely to
> > xrun, but this is not likely with a fully RT kernel.
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Sat Aug 19 04:15:17 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 19 2006 - 04:15:17 EEST