Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4] | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:10:53 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 20:57 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > >> XRUN Rate . . . . . . . . . . . 424 8 4 /hour > >> Delay Rate (>spare time) . . . 496 0 0 /hour > >> Delay Rate (>1000 usecs) . . . 940 8 4 /hour > >> Maximum Delay . . . . . . . . . 6904 921 721 usecs > >> Maximum Process Cycle . . . . . 1449 1469 1590 usecs > >> Average DSP CPU Load . . . . . 38 39 40 % > >> Average Context-Switch Rate . . 7480 8929 9726 /sec > > > >looks pretty good, doesnt it? > > yes and no. its troubling that we're using an extra 100usecs of time > for the max process cycle, if the statistics make that number > meaningful. and why a 30% increase in the context switch rate? is that > an artifact or a real behavioural change? the xrun rate is not bad, > although i'd need to know the period size. 4 clicks per hour would > actually be unacceptable to most professionals, but this may have been > with significant loading outside of JACK - i don't know.
I would not take these results too seriously yet, they are comparing one highly experimental kernel to another. Neither of these setups claims to be ready for professional use yet - we are definitely going for zero xruns, period, this seems to be achievable with most hardware. I just left this in to give you some context.
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |