From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "Jack O'Quin" <joq@io.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: 2.6.11 low latency audio test results
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:34:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1110324852.6510.11.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
OK, I have run some simple tests with JACK, Hydrogen, and 2.6.11.
2.6.11 does not seem to be much of an improvement over 2.6.10. It may
in fact be slightly worse. This was what I expected, as it appears that
a number of latency fixes in the VM got preempted by the 4-level page
tables merge.
At 32 frames (0.667 ms latency) I get an xrun about every 10-20 seconds,
just running JACK and Hydrogen.
At 64 frames (1.33 ms latency) it's better, but I can easily cause
massive xruns with "dbench 32".
At 128 frames (2.66 ms) it seems to work pretty well.
Overall, this puts us about even with Windows XP, and somewhat worse
than Mac OS X.
Of course all of the above settings provide flawless xrun-free
performance with 2.6.11-rc4 + PREEMPT_RT.
Until Ingo releases the RT preempt patch for 2.6.11, I can't provide
details, because the vanilla kernel lacks sufficient instrumentation.
But the above results should help us move in the right direction.
Given the above results, and the performance of the RT patched kernel,
I don't see why 2.6.12 should not be able to solidly outperform Windows
and Mac in this area.
See the "Latency regressions" thread for some areas that might need
attention.
Lee
next reply other threads:[~2005-03-08 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-08 23:34 Lee Revell [this message]
2005-03-09 14:27 ` 2.6.11 low latency audio test results K.R. Foley
2005-03-10 21:52 ` Lee Revell
2005-03-11 2:02 ` Gene Heskett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1110324852.6510.11.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=joq@io.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox