lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ck vs. cfs : realtime audio performance
Cc'd to LKML & Ingo.

L.

Klaus Schulz wrote:
> Hi there.
>
>
>
>
> Am Dienstag, den 31.07.2007, 10:26 +0200 schrieb Klaus Schulz:
>
>> Hi folks.
>>
>> I am currently testing the 2.6.22.1 cfs-rt9 vs. ck1 on my rather pure
>> realtime high-end-audio setup. (NO X, just a terminal, streaming .wav.
>> I am using my own written player and brutefir as the audio engine.)
>> Comment: This is not a standard (amarok or xmms setup), all buffers in
>> the chain are very small. Any problem will immidetialy end up in xruns.
>> The sounddriver, HW (pci-bus etc.) are tweaked accordingly
>>
>> Until now ck1 on 2.6.22 is giving me better results (less audible
>> distortions) and runs extremely stable compared to cfs.
>> Under ck I ran my player with schedtool -R -p 98, which was better than
>> running it e.g. with nice -20
>> Both setups under cfs were giving me worse results than ck.
>> With CFS I also experienced XRUNS from time to time, what never happened
>> with ck.
>>
>> However:
>>
>> When looking at the latest performance statistics cfs vs. ck which are
>> spread around here, I am wondering, what might cause the differences.
>>
>> With ck I tweaked the rr_interval to 6 and was running at 10000Hz,
>> which caused obvious improvements.
>>
>> These options I do not have with CFS.
>>
>> I am wondering if sched_granularity_ns should be touched when using cfs.
>> I googled somewhere that bringing it down to e.g. 250000 instead of
>> 4000000 would smoothen the audio playback. I havn't tried it yet. I am
>> wondering if this tweak is still applicable.
>>
>
>
>
> I did test now decreasing the sched_granularity_ns to 250000.
> There is still a clearly audible difference comparing ck and cfs.
> ck Ídelivers cristal clear sound. With cfs I still get quite some
> distortions.
>
> Any hints how to improve the situtation are welcome.
>
>
>
>
>> I'd be happy to get a hint on how to tweak the system parameters best to
>> give cfs a fair chance. I am also wondering how the timer freqency could
>> by increased under a cfs-patched kernel.
>>
>> Info: dynamic ticks and IRQ balancing are off for the time being.
>> /proc/sys/dev/rtc is set to 4096 (gave me best results)
>> ( I don't have a clue how all the (rtc)-timers in the OS interact,
>> To me it is just a trial and error exercise to figure out which
>> setup sounds best)
>>
>> THX for your advise.
>>
>> Cheers
>> \Klaus
>>
>
>
> Cheers
> \Klaus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ck.kolivas.org/faqs/replying-to-mailing-list.txt
> ck mailing list - mailto: ck@vds.kolivas.org
> http://vds.kolivas.org/mailman/listinfo/ck
>

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-31 15:03    [W:0.054 / U:0.980 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site