Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:17:14 +0200 | From | Roger Larsson <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |