Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:18 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
> 
>>Jeffrey Hundstad ha scritto:
>>
>>
>>>Since you're going to 250 Hz.  Please, if you would, see if you can
>>>tell any performance change and report that as well.  I'm more than a
>>>little skeptical that you'll notice.  BTW: Your battery life should be
>>>a little better at 100 Hz also.
>>>
>>
>>sincerely i can notice that task and application switching is a bit slower.
>>i have a 500mhz cpu so i think i can notice a bit the difference.
>>i can't estimate it mmm...
>>i'll say no more that 5-8%.
>>but i don't know where i'm gaining speed..
> 
> 
> Um, wasn't a consensus reached at OLS two years ago that the target for
> desktop responsiveness would be 1ms which is impossible with HZ=100 or
> 250?

Go back and reread the thread in the archives. The short answer is that 
he who controls the code controls the decisions. I just fix it 
everywhere, since 250 is too fast for optimal battery life, too slow for 
optimal response or multimedia, and not optimal for any server 
application I run (usenet, dns, mail, http, firewall).

A perfect compromise is one which makes everyone reasonably happy; this 
is like the XOR of that, it leaves everyone slightly dissatisfied. ;-)

I'm convinced that Linus choose this value to make everyone slightly 
unhappy, so development of various variable rate and tick skipping 
projects would continue. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have 
happened :-(

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me