From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261594AbVADJwC (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:52:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261595AbVADJwC (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:52:02 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:8867 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261594AbVADJv4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:51:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:51:47 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Lee Revell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@kolivas.org, rncbc@rncbc.org, paul@linuxaudiosystems.com Subject: Re: Latency results with 2.6.10 - looks good Message-ID: <20050104095147.GA14787@elte.hu> References: <1104348820.5218.42.camel@krustophenia.net> <1104549524.3803.28.camel@krustophenia.net> <20050101012252.7b4645b7.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050101012252.7b4645b7.akpm@osdl.org> 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 * Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. i think Lee is well aware of that - nevertheless his data point shows that even the relatively low number of latency fixes that went into 2.6.10 (compared to what is pending in -mm and in -RT) are a step in the right direction. I'd guess the biggest win was the ACPI related latency fix, and maybe the softirq fixes. Ingo