From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261467AbULAWCH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:02:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261466AbULAWCH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:02:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:56798 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261469AbULAV6t (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:58:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:58:37 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rui Nuno Capela Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Revell , mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com, "K.R. Foley" , Bill Huey , Adam Heath , Florian Schmidt , Thomas Gleixner , Michal Schmidt , Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano , Karsten Wiese , Gunther Persoons , emann@mrv.com, Shane Shrybman , Amit Shah , Esben Nielsen , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.10-rc2-mm3-V0.7.31-19 Message-ID: <20041201215837.GA24809@elte.hu> References: <17532.195.245.190.94.1101829198.squirrel@195.245.190.94> <20041201103251.GA18838@elte.hu> <32831.192.168.1.5.1101905229.squirrel@192.168.1.5> <20041201154046.GA15244@elte.hu> <20041201160632.GA3018@elte.hu> <20041201162034.GA8098@elte.hu> <33059.192.168.1.5.1101927565.squirrel@192.168.1.5> <20041201212925.GA23410@elte.hu> <20041201213023.GA23470@elte.hu> <32788.192.168.1.8.1101938057.squirrel@192.168.1.8> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32788.192.168.1.8.1101938057.squirrel@192.168.1.8> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > >> up. (can the soundcard period size / buffering be reduced further, to > >> make it more sensitive to scheduling latencies?) > > > > OK. > > A couple of hours later, as I thrown in some more jack clients into > the picture, the XRUNs started to appear, but very discrete still. just curious, what type of CPU load did this create - over 50%? Ingo