Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

kernel
2005-07-15T17:06:11Z

Quoting Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>:

> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 22:54 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 14:08 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > Audio did show slightly larger max latencies but nothing that would be
> of
> > > > significance.
> > > >
> > > > On video, maximum latencies are only slightly larger at HZ 250, all the
>
> > > > desired cpu was achieved, but the average latency and number of missed
>
> > > > deadlines was significantly higher.
> > >
> > > Because audio timing is driven by the soundcard interrupt while video,
> > > like MIDI, relies heavily on timers.
> >
> > In interbench it's not driven by a soundcard interrupt.
> >
> >
>
> OK. Con, any idea why video is so much more affected than audio?

In the emulation, video vs audio is 40% cpu vs 5% cpu, 16.7ms frames instead of
50ms frames. When your cpu requirements are higher and your frames are shorter
the likelihood of dropping a frame, especially under load, will skyrocket as
your timing granularity decreases. Clearly 250HZ is not as good as 1000HZ for
this, and I assume your midi example.

Cheers,
Con