>>My tests shows that increasing the scheduling frequency to HZ=1000 ....
>
>I feel wary of increasing HZ, but maybe I'll try this out and see how
>it works for me.
First clarification: increasing HZ has big payoffs for a program like
your benchmark, which *isn't* burning CPU cycles generating audio in
real time. But it can be problematic for an application that can use
every available cycle for its own work, because the ten-fold increase
in timer interrupt frequency is going to steal cycles. Does anyone
have any idea how many (x86) cycles it takes to process a timer
interrupt that doesn't result in any change to the tasks running on
each CPU ?
>But I want audio latency to exceed the basic MIDI latency.
Second clarification: by "exceed" I meant "be better than" i.e. lower.
--p
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/