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).
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
