Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] BFS CPU scheduler version 0.420 AKA "Smoking" for linux kernel 3.3.0 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:44:43 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:39 +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 28/03/12 08:12, Heinz Diehl wrote: > > On 25.03.2012, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > >> I'va always wondered what people are using to measure interactivity. Do we have > >> some hard numbers from scheduler traces, or is it a "feels faster"? > > > > I guess it's a "feels faster", because it's the only thing that > > counts. Given that there is strong evidence that scheduler A is > > "faster, more interactive", whatever... than scheduler B, but a > > controlled trial shows a significantly better "feels faster" > > experience using scheduler B, I'm quite shure that people would choose > > scheduler B over A, and that's quite ok. It does what they expect it > > to do, despite evidence which documents the opposite. > > CFS: ALSA XRUNs in JACK. > BFS: much less ALSA XRUNs in JACK
Something like that could be interesting to look into. Do you have a setup and recipe for inducing these xruns I can try? I don't have any audio problems of my own to fiddle with, but then the few apps I use buffer a lot, so I wouldn't.
-Mike
| |