[LAU] Basic question about use of a lowlatency kernel

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Tue Feb 19 12:36:43 UTC 2013


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/02/13 04:36, jonetsu at teksavvy.com wrote:
>
>> If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why
>> isn't
>> lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in Linux
>> Mint and
>> Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not having a
>> lowlatency
>> kernel by default ? Any drawbacks ? I presume the Audio-oriented Linux
>> distros
>> do have lowlatency kernels by default, do they ?
>>
>
> aside from the other things mentioned there is a trade-off between GUI
> responsiveness and audio latency ... if you do the full rt-audio set-up
> then the programs you set as very high priority can easily lock everything
> else out. T
>

on modern systems this is unlikely to be the case any more. (a) multicore
(b) kernel mechanisms to reserve a (small) fraction of available CPU for
non-RT tasks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20130219/3103667e/attachment.html>


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list