Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:30:27 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: My end user testing of 2.4.8-ish kernels |
| |
J Sloan wrote: > > I did some testing today on the mini-low-latency patch. > > I must admit that I was totally biased towards it from the start. > > While it certainly didn't hurt anything, the bottom line is that > after hours of mp3/dbench tests, I was unable to quantify any real > difference between 2.4.18-pre3 vanilla and with mini low latency. > They exhibit pretty much the same behaviour in terms of how much > dbench it takes to start hearing audio dropouts in xmms - they were > both smooth up to dbench 40, but started exhibiting sporadic audio > dropouts at dbench 64.
Oh well. I must have missed one.
> Out of curiosity I booted up 2.4.18pre2-aa2 and found it a real gem. > To my pleasant suprise I was able to run dbench 128 without hearing > a _single_ audio dropout. (the dbench 128 result was 19.75 MB/sec) > > With dbench 192 I did start to hear some occasional dropouts, but > they were generally short, e.g. 100ms or so. > > In any event, all the 2.4.18-pre-ish kernels I tested today are much > better at this than e.g. 2.4.7 - at least on my hardware, I am now > getting excellent interactive performance under load without preempt > or low-latency patches, and that's a good thing. > > IMHO the -aa kernel seems to the clear winner here - >
the -aa kernel basically includes everything that's in the mini-ll patch. If you merge -aa, you get mini-ll. Plus the one I missed :)
- - 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/
| |