Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4]

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 20:57 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >>   XRUN Rate . . . . . . . . . . .     424         8         4    /hour
> >>   Delay Rate (>spare time)  . . .     496         0         0    /hour
> >>   Delay Rate (>1000 usecs)  . . .     940         8         4    /hour
> >>   Maximum Delay . . . . . . . . .    6904       921       721    usecs
> >>   Maximum Process Cycle . . . . .    1449      1469      1590    usecs
> >>   Average DSP CPU Load  . . . . .      38        39        40    %
> >>   Average Context-Switch Rate . .    7480      8929      9726    /sec
> >
> >looks pretty good, doesnt it?
> 
> yes and no. its troubling that we're using an extra 100usecs of time
> for the max process cycle, if the statistics make that number
> meaningful. and why a 30% increase in the context switch rate? is that
> an artifact or a real behavioural change? the xrun rate is not bad,
> although i'd need to know the period size. 4 clicks per hour would
> actually be unacceptable to most professionals, but this may have been
> with significant loading outside of JACK - i don't know.

I would not take these results too seriously yet, they are comparing one
highly experimental kernel to another.  Neither of these setups claims
to be ready for professional use yet - we are definitely going for zero
xruns, period, this seems to be achievable with most hardware.  I just
left this in to give you some context.

Lee