Re: [linux-audio-dev] low-latency scheduling patch for 2.4.0

[george anzinger]

Joe deBlaquiere wrote:

~snip~

> The locical answer is run with HZ=10000 so you get 100us intervals, 
> right ;o). 

Lets not assume we need the overhead of HZ=10000 to get 100us 
alarm/timer resolution.  How about a timer that ticks when we need the 
next tick...

On systems with multiple hardware timers you could kick off a 
> single event at 200us, couldn't you? I've done that before with the 
> extra timer assigned exclusively to a resource. 

With the right hardware resource, one high res counter can give you all 
the various tick resolutions you need. BTDT on HPRT.

George

It's not a giant time 
> slice, but at least you feel like you're allowing something to happen, 
> right?
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> dwmw2

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/