On Mon, February 18, 2013 12:36 pm, jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why > isn't lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in > Linux Mint and Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not > having a lowlatency kernel by default ? Any drawbacks ? I presume the > Audio-oriented Linux distros do have lowlatency kernels by default, do > they ? low latency does not equal performance. low latency and high throughput are not the same either. Low latency means servicing an audio device more often, complete with the overhead involved in that. It means prioritizing one set of RT/lowlatency processes over others for a set purpose. when running audio at a low latency, the rest of my desktop slows down a lot to make sure my audio does not glitch. Low latency is a different set of priorities than performance. -- Len Ovens www.OvenWerks.net _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
