Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261653AbVCIO21 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:28:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261648AbVCIO1p (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:27:45 -0500 Received: from mail4.utc.com ([192.249.46.193]:30713 "EHLO mail4.utc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261634AbVCIO11 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:27:27 -0500 Message-ID: <422F07C2.7080900@cybsft.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:27:14 -0600 From: "K.R. Foley" Organization: Cybersoft Solutions, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lee Revell CC: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , "Jack O'Quin" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.11 low latency audio test results References: <1110324852.6510.11.camel@mindpipe> In-Reply-To: <1110324852.6510.11.camel@mindpipe> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1945 Lines: 52 Lee Revell wrote: > OK, I have run some simple tests with JACK, Hydrogen, and 2.6.11. > > 2.6.11 does not seem to be much of an improvement over 2.6.10. It may > in fact be slightly worse. This was what I expected, as it appears that > a number of latency fixes in the VM got preempted by the 4-level page > tables merge. > > At 32 frames (0.667 ms latency) I get an xrun about every 10-20 seconds, > just running JACK and Hydrogen. > > At 64 frames (1.33 ms latency) it's better, but I can easily cause > massive xruns with "dbench 32". > > At 128 frames (2.66 ms) it seems to work pretty well. > > Overall, this puts us about even with Windows XP, and somewhat worse > than Mac OS X. > > Of course all of the above settings provide flawless xrun-free > performance with 2.6.11-rc4 + PREEMPT_RT. > The above mentioned patch will apply (and build and run) just fine to 2.6.11 if you fix the EXTRAVERSION portion of the patch to not expect -rc4. > Until Ingo releases the RT preempt patch for 2.6.11, I can't provide > details, because the vanilla kernel lacks sufficient instrumentation. > But the above results should help us move in the right direction. > > Given the above results, and the performance of the RT patched kernel, > I don't see why 2.6.12 should not be able to solidly outperform Windows > and Mac in this area. > > See the "Latency regressions" thread for some areas that might need > attention. > > 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/ > - 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/