6 Mar
2005
6 Mar
'05
10:26 a.m.
Hi
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
Anyways, if someone could point me to some detailed information (pref. a
easy-to-follow how-to) on how to patch (which patches to get from where)
a 2.4 kernel for best possible low latency performance.
Thanks in advance.
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
6 Mar
6 Mar
11:20 a.m.
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 15:26:05 +0100
Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel
will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
I know a number of people have gotten 2.6 kernels to work, but that still
seems to be bleeding edge. I'm still on a 2.4 kernel myself, it's been
very stable for me.
Anyways, if someone could point me to some detailed
information (pref. a
easy-to-follow how-to) on how to patch (which patches to get from where)
a 2.4 kernel for best possible low latency performance.
There are a number of audio distributions based on various base distros.
I really like Planet CCRMA, which is based on RedHat/Fedora. There's
also AGNULA, which is based on Debian, I believe. I found it much easier
to install the Planet CCRMA than to patch and rebuild everything myself.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
11:26 a.m.
On Sun, 06 Mar, 2005 at 03:26PM +0100, Atte André Jensen spake thus:
Hi
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
Anyways, if someone could point me to some detailed information (pref. a
easy-to-follow how-to) on how to patch (which patches to get from where)
a 2.4 kernel for best possible low latency performance.
Thanks in advance.
I'd like to hear more about his, too. Even though I just changed to
2.6.11 to make realtime easier.
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
12:06 p.m.
If you'd like to build it from scratch, some of the stuff on my web page
should still be useful:
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/ALSA_JACK_ARDOUR.html
Personally, I've switched over to Fedora Core 1 and Planet CCRMA. It's
just a heck of a lot easier.
Jan
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 08:26, Atte André Jensen wrote:
Hi
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
Anyways, if someone could point me to some detailed information (pref. a
easy-to-follow how-to) on how to patch (which patches to get from where)
a 2.4 kernel for best possible low latency performance.
Thanks in advance.
12:27 p.m.
On Sun, 06 Mar, 2005 at 10:43AM -0600, Jan Depner spake thus:
If you'd like to build it from scratch, some of
the stuff on my web page
should still be useful:
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/ALSA_JACK_ARDOUR.html
Personally, I've switched over to Fedora Core 1 and Planet CCRMA. It's
just a heck of a lot easier.
That's a point, Atte: what distro are you using? They might have a
low latency kernel somewhere. Gentoo has a number of different
patched kernel sources.
Jan
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 08:26, Atte André Jensen wrote:
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
Hi
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
Anyways, if someone could point me to some detailed information (pref. a
easy-to-follow how-to) on how to patch (which patches to get from where)
a 2.4 kernel for best possible low latency performance.
Thanks in advance.
12:18 p.m.
Atte André Jensen wrote:
Hi
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
Anyways, if someone could point me to some detailed information (pref.
a easy-to-follow how-to) on how to patch (which patches to get from
where) a 2.4 kernel for best possible low latency performance.
Thanks in advance.
You could try the 2.4.26.ll kernel from CCRMA, it's already patched and
works good. It's available here:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/system.html#kernel
Rick B
12:29 p.m.
Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> writes:
I finally decided to see how well a low latency kernel
will work on my
system. I guess the best performance will be with 2.4.x, right?
"Best" depends on your needs and priorities.
For lowest latency, 2.6.10 with Ingo Molnar's realtime preemption
patches is currently the best. But, that requires considerable effort
on your part.
For less effort, 2.4.x with the lowlatency patches is solid and
delivers good results.
A recent, stable 2.6.x kernel is also an easy option. I'm getting as
good or better LL results with vanilla 2.6.10 than with 2.4.19 and the
LL patches. I have not tried 2.6.11 yet, but expect it to be even
better. IMO, latency is no longer a reason to avoid 2.6 kernels.
For the easiest solution, go with PlanetCCRMA (Fedora/RedHat) or
AGNULA/DeMuDi (Debian). They've got this stuff all integrated and
readily available for binary download.
--
joq
1:37 p.m.
Jack O'Quin wrote:
"Best" depends on your needs and priorities.
I would accept a kernel that is only used for music. Actually the only
thing I need realtime for is running csound5 in realtime controlled over
midi. I just upgraded from csound4 and performance is better in csound5,
but still I cannot get buffersize lower than 512 (csound-alone-latency:
12ms = too much) without a click every 30 secs or so. csound4 clicked
much more, about every 2 secs, so I'm thinking I'm close, mainly due to
the fact csound5 is able to use the alsa drivers instead of oss-emulation.
To be honest I'm not sure exactly what is the cause of the problem
(which is why I want to see what an optimized kernel will do), I can
think of:
1) kernel.
2) unnecessary services
3) the fact that my soundcard is usb (Edirol UA-1A)
4) csound itself (doubt it)
5) computer. Hope not, it a P4 2.4Ghz laptop
For lowest latency, 2.6.10 with Ingo Molnar's
realtime preemption
patches is currently the best.
That's new for me... You're not talking about this, right?
[atte@aarhus src]$ head linux-2.6.10-rt2.patch
diff -ruN -X /home/joq/bin/kdiff.exclude
linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt
linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3-rt2/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt
--- linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt Wed Dec 31
18:00:00 1969
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3-rt2/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt Wed Nov
24 09:58:29 2004
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+
+ Realtime Linux Security Module
+
+
+This Linux Security Module (LSM) enables realtime capabilities. It
+was written by Torben Hohn and Jack O'Quin, under the provisions of
I tried applying the above patch, but I didn't see anything new under
"security" in the kernel config, so I guess I did something wrong...
Where to get the patches you're talking about, and what to do?
But, that requires considerable effort
on your part.
Not that much, since I'm on a home brewn 2.6.9... This also means that I
have a working alsa setup. If i wen't with 2.4 I would have to install
alsa seperately, so...
A recent, stable 2.6.x kernel is also an easy option.
I'm getting as
good or better LL results with vanilla 2.6.10 than with 2.4.19 and the
LL patches. I have not tried 2.6.11 yet, but expect it to be even
better. IMO, latency is no longer a reason to avoid 2.6 kernels.
As mentioned, I'm already on 2.6.9.
For the easiest solution, go with PlanetCCRMA
(Fedora/RedHat) or
AGNULA/DeMuDi (Debian). They've got this stuff all integrated and
readily available for binary download.
I'm not interrested in "easy" but in "best". I'm on
debian/unstable, so
maybe agnula would be possible. I just want to make sure that my current
system is not "infected" with all kinds of agnula stuff. Is it possible
just to get the low-latency kernel and use on an unstable system?
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
1:50 p.m.
yes, I use unstable + agnula demudi repositorie, and until now works
okey..., the demudi repositorie is a debian repositorie with just the
audio aplications.
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:37:20 +0100, Atte André Jensen
<atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jack O'Quin wrote:
"Best" depends on your needs and
priorities.
I would accept a kernel that is only used for music. Actually the only
thing I need realtime for is running csound5 in realtime controlled over
midi. I just upgraded from csound4 and performance is better in csound5,
but still I cannot get buffersize lower than 512 (csound-alone-latency:
12ms = too much) without a click every 30 secs or so. csound4 clicked
much more, about every 2 secs, so I'm thinking I'm close, mainly due to
the fact csound5 is able to use the alsa drivers instead of oss-emulation.
To be honest I'm not sure exactly what is the cause of the problem
(which is why I want to see what an optimized kernel will do), I can
think of:
1) kernel.
2) unnecessary services
3) the fact that my soundcard is usb (Edirol UA-1A)
4) csound itself (doubt it)
5) computer. Hope not, it a P4 2.4Ghz laptop
For lowest latency, 2.6.10 with Ingo Molnar's
realtime preemption
patches is currently the best.
That's new for me... You're not talking about this, right?
[atte@aarhus src]$ head linux-2.6.10-rt2.patch
diff -ruN -X /home/joq/bin/kdiff.exclude
linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt
linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3-rt2/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt
--- linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt Wed Dec 31
18:00:00 1969
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc2-mm3-rt2/Documentation/realtime-lsm.txt Wed Nov
24 09:58:29 2004
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+
+ Realtime Linux Security Module
+
+
+This Linux Security Module (LSM) enables realtime capabilities. It
+was written by Torben Hohn and Jack O'Quin, under the provisions of
I tried applying the above patch, but I didn't see anything new under
"security" in the kernel config, so I guess I did something wrong...
Where to get the patches you're talking about, and what to do?
But, that requires considerable effort
on your part.
Not that much, since I'm on a home brewn 2.6.9... This also means that I
have a working alsa setup. If i wen't with 2.4 I would have to install
alsa seperately, so...
A recent, stable 2.6.x kernel is also an easy
option. I'm getting as
good or better LL results with vanilla 2.6.10 than with 2.4.19 and the
LL patches. I have not tried 2.6.11 yet, but expect it to be even
better. IMO, latency is no longer a reason to avoid 2.6 kernels.
As mentioned, I'm already on 2.6.9.
For the easiest solution, go with PlanetCCRMA
(Fedora/RedHat) or
AGNULA/DeMuDi (Debian). They've got this stuff all integrated and
readily available for binary download.
I'm not interrested in "easy" but in "best". I'm on
debian/unstable, so
maybe agnula would be possible. I just want to make sure that my current
system is not "infected" with all kinds of agnula stuff. Is it possible
just to get the low-latency kernel and use on an unstable system?
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
2 p.m.
Jorge Salgueiro wrote:
yes, I use unstable + agnula demudi repositorie, and
until now works
okey..., the demudi repositorie is a debian repositorie with just the
audio aplications.
Are you talking about one of these?
[atte@aarhus ~]$ apt-cache search low latency | grep kernel
kernel-patch-2.4-lowlatency - Reduces the latency of the Linux kernel
kernel-patch-2.4-preempt - Reduces the latency of the Linux kernel
kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4 - Dummy package providing
kernel-patch-2.4-lowlatency
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
3:50 p.m.
On Sun, 06 Mar, 2005 at 07:00PM +0100, Atte André Jensen spake thus:
Jorge Salgueiro wrote:
Well, there's nothing stopping you using the gentoo 2.6.11-mm1
sources. These are nice and prepatched. I'm using it now and having
lots of joy on the latency front.
Mind you, that's compared to my previous vanilla-ish 2.4 kernel, so
YMMV. Easy to give it a go, though.
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
yes, I use unstable + agnula demudi repositorie,
and until now works
okey..., the demudi repositorie is a debian repositorie with just the
audio aplications.
Are you talking about one of these?
[atte@aarhus ~]$ apt-cache search low latency | grep kernel
kernel-patch-2.4-lowlatency - Reduces the latency of the Linux kernel
kernel-patch-2.4-preempt - Reduces the latency of the Linux kernel
kernel-patch-lowlatency-2.4 - Dummy package providing
kernel-patch-2.4-lowlatency
4:02 p.m.
Atte André Jensen wrote:
For myself CCRMA was win/win, easy/best.
Just curious if others are getting latency down to .677 +- or am I
fooling myself.
I've yet to get a latency-test program to work.
Athalon oc'd to 3200+ 1G ram 120g hd
qjackctl; Frames/Period=16 Sample Rate=48000 Peroids/Buffer 2
Ardour; jack>latency>32= 0.7msecs
hdparm -m 8 -d 1 -u 1 -c 1 -K 1 /dev/hda/
lspci
00:06.0 Multimedia audio controller: nVidia Corporation nForce2 AC97
Audio Controler (MCP) (rev a1)
01:08.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100]
(rev 05)
|
from http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-hw2.html
#"open up" the PCI bus by allowing fairly long bursts for all devices,
increasing performance
setpci -v -d *:* latency_timer=b0
#maximize latency timers for network and audio, allowing them to transmit
#more data per burst, preventing buffer over/underrun conditions
setpci -v -s 00:06.0 latency_timer=ff
setpci -v -s 01:08.0 latency_timer=ff |
Jack O'Quin wrote:
After weeks of patching, re-patching, failed patches, on a Startcom
Distro, I installed FC3 > CCRMA, 2.6.10-0.6.rdt.rhfc3.ccrma &
2.6.10-2.1.ll.rhfc3.ccrma kernels > audio apps. The * -2.1.ll crashed a
couple of times so I stayed with the -.0.6.rtd and had it installed,
upgraded, functional and stable in hours.
With some experimental configuring it is running at .667ms qjackctl,
ardour, hydrogen, on-board AC97 sound with 0 Xruns. Loading jack_rack,
qsynth, rosegarden and Zyaddsubfx through qjackctl hasn't caused an
xrun but I haven't played or recorded with these yet.
"Best" depends on your needs and
priorities.
I would accept a kernel that is only used for music. Actually the only
thing I need realtime for is running csound5 in realtime controlled over
midi. I just upgraded from csound4 and performance is better in csound5,
but still I cannot get buffersize lower than 512 (csound-alone-latency:
12ms = too much) without a click every 30 secs or so. csound4 clicked
much more, about every 2 secs, so I'm thinking I'm close, mainly due to
the fact csound5 is able to use the alsa drivers instead of
oss-emulation.
For the easiest solution, go with PlanetCCRMA
(Fedora/RedHat) or
AGNULA/DeMuDi (Debian). They've got this stuff all integrated and
readily available for binary download.
I'm not interrested in "easy" but in "best". I'm on
debian/unstable, so
maybe agnula would be possible. I just want to make sure that my current
system is not "infected" with all kinds of agnula stuff. Is it possible
just to get the low-latency kernel and use on an unstable system?
7 Mar
7 Mar
12:50 a.m.
Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> writes:
No. That patch is useful for granting RT privileges to non-root
users, but it has no effect on the inherent latency of the kernel.
I believe so. And their LL kernels probably work very well. But, I
can't prove that from personal experience.
--
joq
To be honest I'm not sure exactly what is the
cause of the problem
(which is why I want to see what an optimized kernel will do), I can
think of:
1) kernel.
possible
2) unnecessary services
unlikely
3) the fact that my soundcard is usb (Edirol UA-1A)
quite possible, but some have reported success with this device, IIRC
4) csound itself (doubt it)
agreed
5) computer. Hope not, it a P4 2.4Ghz laptop
very unlikely
For lowest
latency, 2.6.10 with Ingo Molnar's realtime preemption
patches is currently the best.
That's new for me... You're not talking about this, right?
[atte@aarhus src]$ head linux-2.6.10-rt2.patch I tried applying the above patch, but I didn't see
anything new under
"security" in the kernel config, so I guess I did something wrong...
You should see a new CONFIG_SECURITY_REALTIME option after the patch
is applied. If depends on CONFIG_SECURITY and requires that
CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITES not be built in (=y). I recommend
building it as a module (=m).
Where to get the patches you're talking about, and
what to do?
[1] http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2005/Feb/1083.html
Not that much, since I'm on a home brewn 2.6.9...
This also means that I
have a working alsa setup. If i wen't with 2.4 I would have to install
alsa seperately, so...
2.6.9 did not have good latency in my tests. 2.6.10 was much better.
Since you're already comfortable building and installing kernels, I
suggest you try 2.6.11 first. Then, if you want to push the envelope
further, try Ingo's patchset[1].
I suspect your USB device will become a latency bottleneck before
these kernels will, but only experimenting on your own system will
tell you for sure.
A recent, stable 2.6.x kernel is also an easy
option. I'm getting as
good or better LL results with vanilla 2.6.10 than with 2.4.19 and the
LL patches. I have not tried 2.6.11 yet, but expect it to be even
better. IMO, latency is no longer a reason to avoid 2.6 kernels.
As mentioned, I'm already on 2.6.9. For the
easiest solution, go with PlanetCCRMA (Fedora/RedHat) or
AGNULA/DeMuDi (Debian). They've got this stuff all integrated and
readily available for binary download.
I'm not interrested in "easy" but in "best". I'm on
debian/unstable, so
maybe agnula would be possible. I just want to make sure that my current
system is not "infected" with all kinds of agnula stuff. Is it possible
just to get the low-latency kernel and use on an unstable system?
12:10 p.m.
Jack O'Quin wrote:
2.6.9 did not have good latency in my tests. 2.6.10
was much better.
Ok...
Since you're already comfortable building and
installing kernels, I
suggest you try 2.6.11 first. Then, if you want to push the envelope
further, try Ingo's patchset[1].
Thanks. I installed a vanilla 2.6.11 and the occational pop is gone.
I suspect your USB device will become a latency
bottleneck before
these kernels will, but only experimenting on your own system will
tell you for sure.
Is there an inherent minimum latency for USB soundcards?
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
1:01 p.m.
Jack O'Quin wrote:
> I suspect your USB device will become a latency bottleneck before
> these kernels will, but only experimenting on your own system will
> tell you for sure.
Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> writes:
Is there an inherent minimum latency for USB
soundcards?
I have no USB sound card. Perhaps someone else can answer that
question.
There *are* reported latency problems with USB, ALSA and JACK due to
isochronous USB data transfers and JACK's need for a constant power of
two buffer size. IIUC, USB sends a block every 1ms. With some sample
rates this does not result in a constant number of samples in every
block. Progress has been made with certain specific devices (usx2y),
but I believe the general problem still remains.
These issues seem to become more intrusive at lower latencies. But, I
really don't know what the limits are for your device.
--
joq
3:03 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:03:50AM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
I have a Terratec Producer Phase 26 USB soundcard and I have intensively
tested 2.4 and 2.6 kernel for stability for hours and lower latency, the best
result is with the gentoo-sources 2.4.28 (gentoo kernel are already
patches for all audio needs)
I run jackd with
Frames/Period = 256
Sample Rate = 48000
Periods/Buffer = 3
wich provides a 16ms latency
If I try to go lower, I have xruns when I connect/disconnect clients.
Regards
Philippe
Is there an
inherent minimum latency for USB soundcards?
I have no USB sound card. Perhaps someone else can answer that
question.
There *are* reported latency problems with USB, ALSA and JACK due to
isochronous USB data transfers and JACK's need for a constant power of
two buffer size. IIUC, USB sends a block every 1ms. With some sample
rates this does not result in a constant number of samples in every
block. Progress has been made with certain specific devices (usx2y),
but I believe the general problem still remains.
These issues seem to become more intrusive at lower latencies. But, I
really don't know what the limits are for your device. 
3:24 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 19:07 +0000, Dubphil wrote:
I have a Terratec Producer Phase 26 USB soundcard and
I have intensively
tested 2.4 and 2.6 kernel for stability for hours and lower latency, the best
result is with the gentoo-sources 2.4.28 (gentoo kernel are already
patches for all audio needs)
I run jackd with
Frames/Period = 256
Sample Rate = 48000
Periods/Buffer = 3
wich provides a 16ms latency
If I try to go lower, I have xruns when I connect/disconnect clients.
You will always get xruns when you connect or disconnect a client. It's
considered normal and JACK does not make any effort to prevent this.
Same way you get a click when you plug something into a mixing console.
A more useful measure would be the lowest latency settings + kernel
combination that does not produce xruns during normal playback/capture.
Lee
3:59 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:24:46PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
You will always get xruns when you connect or
disconnect a client. It's
considered normal and JACK does not make any effort to prevent this.
Same way you get a click when you plug something into a mixing console.
Good to know that :)
A more useful measure would be the lowest latency
settings + kernel
combination that does not produce xruns during normal playback/capture.
Another crucial criteria for me is when I load a wav file into
TerminatorX, with my setting I have no xruns, but at lower settings
it gives xruns... perhaps this is not also a valuable mesure :)
Regards
Philippe
9 Mar
9 Mar
8:37 a.m.
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes:
You will always get xruns when you connect or
disconnect a client.
Stephane Letz redesign prevents this. We should expect jack pretty
soon to wave goodbye to this awful feature.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef(a)esben-stien.name
http://www.esben-stien.name
irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact
[sip|iax]:esben-stien.name
12:45 p.m.
Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> writes:
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes:
I believe this will happen some time *after* JACK-1.0.0.
I doubt that is what you mean by "pretty soon".
--
joq
You will always get xruns when you connect or
disconnect a client.
Stephane Letz redesign prevents this. We should expect jack pretty
soon to wave goodbye to this awful feature.
6 Mar
6 Mar
5:19 p.m.
Jack O'Quin wrote:
A recent, stable 2.6.x kernel is also an easy option.
I'm getting as
good or better LL results with vanilla 2.6.10 than with 2.4.19 and the
LL patches. I have not tried 2.6.11 yet, but expect it to be even
better.
I just upgraded from 2.6.9 to 2.6.11 (both vanilla) and the occational
pop is gone. That leaves me with 5.8ms of latency, which is acceptable
for now. If I get a need-for-speed or get into trouble I'll get back.
Thanks for the pointers.
BTW: My 2.6.11 .config is here:
http://atte.dk/linux/.config
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
6:21 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 22:19 +0100, Atte André Jensen wrote:
Jack O'Quin wrote:
Looks like you use ACPI. There was a serious ACPI bug fixed in 2.6.10
that would have caused those xruns.
Lee
A recent, stable 2.6.x kernel is also an easy
option. I'm getting as
good or better LL results with vanilla 2.6.10 than with 2.4.19 and the
LL patches. I have not tried 2.6.11 yet, but expect it to be even
better.
I just upgraded from 2.6.9 to 2.6.11 (both vanilla) and the occational
pop is gone. That leaves me with 5.8ms of latency, which is acceptable
for now. If I get a need-for-speed or get into trouble I'll get back.
Thanks for the pointers.
BTW: My 2.6.11 .config is here:
http://atte.dk/linux/.config
7:25 p.m.
Lee Revell wrote:
Looks like you use ACPI. There was a serious ACPI bug
fixed in 2.6.10
that would have caused those xruns.
Nice thought, but I think you're wrong: This wasn't (the main cause of)
the problem. I know, since I tried (amongst 1.000.000 other things) to
disable acpi and apm alltogether in 2.6.9, with no improvement...
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
7201
days inactive
7204
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
22 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Atte André Jensen -
Dubphil -
Esben Stien -
Jack O'Quin -
james＠dis-dot-dat.net -
Jan Depner -
Joe Hartley -
Jorge Salgueiro -
Lee Revell -
Mitch L Pond -
Rick B