Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:44:42 -0500 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED) |
| |
Lee Revell wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:18 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote: > >>Jeffrey Hundstad ha scritto: >> >> >>>Since you're going to 250 Hz. Please, if you would, see if you can >>>tell any performance change and report that as well. I'm more than a >>>little skeptical that you'll notice. BTW: Your battery life should be >>>a little better at 100 Hz also. >>> >> >>sincerely i can notice that task and application switching is a bit slower. >>i have a 500mhz cpu so i think i can notice a bit the difference. >>i can't estimate it mmm... >>i'll say no more that 5-8%. >>but i don't know where i'm gaining speed.. > > > Um, wasn't a consensus reached at OLS two years ago that the target for > desktop responsiveness would be 1ms which is impossible with HZ=100 or > 250?
Go back and reread the thread in the archives. The short answer is that he who controls the code controls the decisions. I just fix it everywhere, since 250 is too fast for optimal battery life, too slow for optimal response or multimedia, and not optimal for any server application I run (usenet, dns, mail, http, firewall).
A perfect compromise is one which makes everyone reasonably happy; this is like the XOR of that, it leaves everyone slightly dissatisfied. ;-)
I'm convinced that Linus choose this value to make everyone slightly unhappy, so development of various variable rate and tick skipping projects would continue. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have happened :-(
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/
| |