18 Aug
2006
18 Aug
'06
10:28 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:26 -0400, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
I've certainly seen setitimer()-driven sleeping
get much better
response time on a kernel compiled to 1000 Hz (with preemption) over
one compiled to 100 Hz (without preemption).
Audio doesn't use setitimer()-driven sleeping. It's interrupt-driven,
not timer-driven.
Lee
From this, I think it should be possible to say
that one could read
the audio card with smaller buffers more quickly, reducing
latency.
But I haven't made tests using audio, specifically, so I won't say
more. I suspect the kernel driver and userspace API (ALSA or
whatever) might need to be made to take advantage of it, but I know
little about ALSA internals.
Steve
On 8/18/06, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 23:10 +0700, Mulyadi
Santosa wrote:
Is there any relationship between kernel HZ and
audio timing? I imagine
no. or almost none.
recording audio doesn't involve using the system timer at all. the only
clock involved is the sample clock that drives the audio interface.
having HZ set too high could conceivably make the system more likely to
xrun, but this is not likely with a fully RT kernel.