Stone wrote:
>     sure, just changing it to 'usleep(10000)' works too. Is there a
>     reason to avoid
>     the ringbuffer infrastructure?
> No reason in particular, I just wanted to test which one worked best
> with performance.  Thanks for the patch. :)

I tried the 1us -> (1000|10000)us sleep approach first, before using the
ringbuffer timeouts -- saw no noticeable difference wrt performance.
10ms timeouts seemed to be enough (it's the resolution of a HZ==100 kernel)
and gave similar interrupt and cs numbers as w/ low-res timers.


vdr mailing list

Reply via email to