On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:59:30 +0100, Len Ovens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Performance for _my_ averaged non-audio desktop usage isn't less good,
when using a kernel-rt or full preempt kernel with threadirqs set, than
when using a vanilla or so called desktop optimized kernel, so I'm usually
using a self compiled kernel-rt. However, I'm seldom toying around with my
computer, so "averaged non-audio" does mean that I use mail clients,
browsers and GIMP, even for consuming multimedia, I seldom use the
computer.
But making the kernel-rt a default, would be as bad, as making flashy
animated 3D desktops a default, so IMO distros should stop this desktop
insanity, but keep non-rt-kernels, while providing a kernel-rt by the
repositories.
2 Cents,
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
