[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] sched: fix scheduling latencies for !PREEMPT kernels
    On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 11:03, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 12:28:49AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > Well I don't know how good an argument the crashes one is these days,
    > > but generally (as far as I know) those who really care about latency
    > > shouldn't mind about some extra overheads.
    > sure, that's especially true for the hardirq and softirq total scheduler
    > offloading. The real question is where a generic desktop positions. I
    > doubt on a generic desktop a latency over 1msec matters much,
    > top performance of repetitive tasks that sums up like hardirqs for a NIC
    > sounds more sensible to me.
    > And for the other usages RTAI or any other hard realtime sounds safer
    > anyways.

    For a generic desktop I don't think any of this makes much of a
    difference; AFAIK none of the VP testers have reported a perceptible
    difference in system responsiveness. A good point of comparison here is
    what Microsoft OS'es can do. My Windows XP setup works pretty well with
    a latency of 2.66ms or 128 frames at 48KHZ, and is rock solid at 256
    frames or 5.33ms.

    However for low latency audio Mac OS X is our real competition. OS X
    can deliver audio latencies of probably 0.5ms. There is not much point
    in going much lower than this because the difference becomes
    imperceptible and the more frequent cache thrashing becomes an issue;
    this is close enough to the limits of what sound hardware is capable of

    With Ingo's patches the worst case latency on the same machine as my XP
    example is about 150 usecs. So, it seems to me that Ingo's patches can
    achieve results as good or better than OSX even without the one or two
    "dangerous" changes, like the removal of lock_kernel around


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.019 / U:7.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site