From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262204AbVAAJXD (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 04:23:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262205AbVAAJXD (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 04:23:03 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:185 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262204AbVAAJXA (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 04:23:00 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 01:22:52 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Lee Revell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, kernel@kolivas.org, rncbc@rncbc.org, paul@linuxaudiosystems.com Subject: Re: Latency results with 2.6.10 - looks good Message-Id: <20050101012252.7b4645b7.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1104549524.3803.28.camel@krustophenia.net> References: <1104348820.5218.42.camel@krustophenia.net> <1104549524.3803.28.camel@krustophenia.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lee Revell wrote: > > Followup: other audio users have confirmed that 2.6.10 is the best > release yet latency-wise. It works most of the time at 64 frames > (~1.33ms latency). > > Now, the bad news: there are still enough xruns to make it not quite > good enough for, say, a recording studio; as we all know with realtime > constraints the worst case scenario is important. The kernel which you should be testing is most-recent -mm. The -mm kernels have had a bunch of latency improvements which are queued for 2.6.11. We need to know how that stuff performs - 2.6.10 is largely uninteresting from a development POV.