On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Simon Wise <simonzwise@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On 19/02/13 04:36, jonetsu@email-addr-hidden wrote:
>
>> If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why
>> isn't
>> lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in Linux
>> Mint and
>> Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not having a
>> lowlatency
>> kernel by default ? Any drawbacks ? I presume the Audio-oriented Linux
>> distros
>> do have lowlatency kernels by default, do they ?
>>
>
> aside from the other things mentioned there is a trade-off between GUI
> responsiveness and audio latency ... if you do the full rt-audio set-up
> then the programs you set as very high priority can easily lock everything
> else out. T
>
on modern systems this is unlikely to be the case any more. (a) multicore
(b) kernel mechanisms to reserve a (small) fraction of available CPU for
non-RT tasks.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Feb 19 16:15:02 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 19 2013 - 16:15:02 EET