lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: a joint letter on low latency and Linux
Felix von Leitner wrote:
>
> Thus spake Paul Barton-Davis (pbd@Op.Net):
> > All we need is guaranteed scheduling response. We don't need QOS
> > guarantees for any other subsystems, for example (it would be nice,
> > but its not necessary).
>
> Oh yes, we do!
>
> What good is a low latency response if there is no QoS to guarantee
> enough CPU and memory? I don't consider locking memory pages and the
> FIFO scheduler a valid solution to this, because a single misbehaving
> process can cause a complete denial of service.
>
> I find guaranteed disk and SCSI bus throughput much more important than
> your MIDI stuff, because more people are burning CDs under Linux than
> there are MIDI users on all operating systems combined ;-)

But the problem is the same - what good will your throughput be if your
burner process is not run for 500ms? You need A LOT of throughput to be
able to catch up several latency hits...
[ok, There is a lot of buffer on cd writers - but it will prevent going
faster]


The problem is exactly the same - you stream data to a device.
The device interrupts when it needs more data.
The actual program is not run.....
You get a drop out.

With audio you get audible disturbance, with CD writing you get a
destroyed CD...

/RogerL

--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:1.271 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site