Re: [linux-audio-dev] low-latency scheduling patch for 2.4.0

george anzinger
2001-01-31T07:59:56Z

Joe deBlaquiere wrote:

~snip~

> The locical answer is run with HZ=10000 so you get 100us intervals,
> right ;o).

Lets not assume we need the overhead of HZ=10000 to get 100us
alarm/timer resolution. How about a timer that ticks when we need the
next tick...

On systems with multiple hardware timers you could kick off a
> single event at 200us, couldn't you? I've done that before with the
> extra timer assigned exclusively to a resource.

With the right hardware resource, one high res counter can give you all
the various tick resolutions you need. BTDT on HPRT.

George

It's not a giant time
> slice, but at least you feel like you're allowing something to happen,
> right?
>
>>
>> --
>> dwmw2