Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

From: Lee Revell (rlrevell_at_joe-job.com)
Date: 07/15/05

  • Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt" 
    To: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:59:54 -0400

    On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 22:54 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 14:08 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > > > Audio did show slightly larger max latencies but nothing that would be of
    > > > significance.
    > > >
    > > > On video, maximum latencies are only slightly larger at HZ 250, all the
    > > > desired cpu was achieved, but the average latency and number of missed
    > > > deadlines was significantly higher.
    > >
    > > Because audio timing is driven by the soundcard interrupt while video,
    > > like MIDI, relies heavily on timers.
    >
    > In interbench it's not driven by a soundcard interrupt.
    >
    >

    OK. Con, any idea why video is so much more affected than audio?

    Lee

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt"