13 Jul
2005
13 Jul
'05
2:44 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:31:21PM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:49:11 -0400
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> wrote:
Well, i
suppose it's a tradeoff between throughput and responsiveness.
Larger timeslices increase system throughput (less time is spent in the
scheduler) while smaller timeslices increase responsiveness.
I expected something like this. But, I guess my question was more, who
is complaining about HZ=1024? To which I guess the answer would be
everyone who is more concerned about throughput than latency. Though,
somehow I think that everyone needs a good balance between the two.
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
Correct,
it's not an issue for apps driven by hardware interrupts like
JACK, because the sound card consumes data at a constant rate. But for
MIDI or video where you have to periodically push data to the device it
matters.
What is driving the kernel-devs to regress on this issue?