Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: Recent LKML discussion on preempt/latency in 2.6 kernels
From: Ross Vandegrift (ross_AT_willow.seitz.com)
Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 16:13:06 EET
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:44:24AM +0100, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> This is very interesting. It says that preempt have no influence
> on the worst-case latency. In other words, this means that
> preempt in theory is useless regarding use of realtime audio.
Has anyone tried audio work with 2.6 and preempt *off*? I've been using
2.6 some, with preempt on and I'm seeing exactly the same kind of
behaviour as the original email in the thread reports - compiles take
twice as long and disk latency kills interactivity whenever something
loads a program/file. I basically went back to 2.4+lowlatency for audio
work, but I wonder if anyone's tried 2.6 without preempt?
-- Ross Vandegrift ross_AT_willow.seitz.comA Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon. He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He makes it official. It is a Canon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 23 2004 - 16:11:08 EET