Hi... > Hi everyone! > Short question only: If I compile a realtime kernel, with Ingo's patches, do > I need to set the timer to 1000Hz. It still worths to use 1000 Hz even if you use realtime kernel. real time kernel, AFAIK, makes interrupts management (especially timer) more fluid (read: fast). However, that also depends on the timer granularity itself. That's why using 1000Hz is important: finer granularity. If you care about power consumption, enable no_hz so clock ticks are skipped whenever no timers need to be handled at certain time. This is to compensate the fact that higher HZ means more time spent to handle interrupts. In my experiment (for still unpublished article), making HZ higher makes UI (User Interface) somewhat more responsible to mouse movement/click and keyboard press. This is probably due to the way signal is handled in Linux: they are piggybacking kernel-to-user space code path And don't forget to use full preemption. So the full recipe is: 1000HZ + no_hz + full preemption AFAIK, most MIDI applications now use RTC, so they don't rely on HZ granularity. But still, using HZ=1000 bring advantage for another aspect. > Or is it best to do so. My system is about > 2 and a half years old athlon 2500+ CPU 1.8gHz. > Single CPU single core, then? Make sure not to compile your kernel for SMP, that will make your kernel a bit smaller and somewhat faster. Hope this helps. regards, Mulyadi _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
