Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Right way to cut latencies? (was: <no subject>) | Date | Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:55:00 +0200 | From | Helge Hafting <> |
| |
David Olofson wrote: > On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Benno Senoner wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Linus is right, of course. But if the problem really is memory block > operations...? > > > Agreed, but the question is: is some kernel hacker motivated to do > > implement this before 2.4 ? We can hope, or try! I believe this sort of thing can be fixed even after feature freeze, after all it is acknowledged as a bug, not a "missing" feature.
> > > That would give the same low latency without hurting disk performance under > > > load. > > > > I'm not 100%sure about this .. > > Nothing comes at zero cost.. > The "good" solution would be the better one. According to Linus, the bad latency is a bug, because something is using more time than necessary. Fixing that will be a win-only scenario, less time used will improve all cases, both better audio latencies and even better disk performance under cpu load.
Maybe it won't improve audio latency *enough*, in that case insert some of the reschedule calls anyway. But you won't need as many of them if the underlying bug is fixed.
Helge Hafting
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |