Hi, Has anyone tried the different IO schedulers with 2.6? I've seen some systems that feel much more responsive with the non-default Deadline scheduler than the default anticipatory scheduler .. I haven't done any audio specific latency tests though. later, Steve Jack O'Quin wrote: > James Stone <stone1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >>On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:21:15PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: > > >>>Another thing to check would be your X server's nice value. This used >>>to be "-10" in older Debians, but should not be set at all with 2.6. > > >>How disappointing.. I just tried this, and it didn't help.. I was almost >>sure this was going to work. I am still getting many more xruns than >>with the low latency 2.4.x kernels though at least I am not getting >>xruns on opening and closing windows! >> >>However, on doing a top in 2.6.x I noticed that quite a few processes >>are running with a nice of -10 (something called "event" among >>others..). This does not appear to be the case in 2.4.x.. perhaps this >>could be the source of the trouble.. not really sure how to fix it >>though. > > > This makes me wonder if there is a bug in the scheduler. IIUC, a > realtime thread is *supposed* to have higher priority than any > non-SCHED_FIFO thread, regardless of "nice" value. > > If we can nail down a case where this is definitely happening, someone > should report it to Andrew Morton. > > >>I will have to stick with 2.4.25 for the time being by the looks of >>things. > > > You can almost certainly get better low-latency results that way, at > least for the moment. I hope that over time 2.6.x will become just as > good.
