On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:26 -0400, Stephen Sinclair wrote: > 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. >
Audio doesn't use setitimer()-driven sleeping. It's interrupt-driven, not timer-driven. Lee > > 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. > > > > > > >
