On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm concerned that the major improvement has come from additional > calls to schedule instead of from some basic improvements in algorithm. there are _no_ extra calls to schedule, only if necessery. Zero, nil, nada. Please check out the patch. -- mingo
- Low-latency patches working GREAT (<2.9ms audio late... Benno Senoner
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working GREAT (<2... yodaiken
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working GREAT (&... Alan Cox
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working GREA... yodaiken
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working ... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches wor... yodaiken
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... yodaiken
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... yodaiken
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... Ingo Molnar
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... yodaiken
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency pat... Stephen C. Tweedie
- Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working ... yodaiken
