Quoting Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 22:54 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 14:08 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Audio did show slightly larger max latencies but nothing that would be > of > > > > significance. > > > > > > > > On video, maximum latencies are only slightly larger at HZ 250, all the > > > > > desired cpu was achieved, but the average latency and number of missed > > > > > deadlines was significantly higher. > > > > > > Because audio timing is driven by the soundcard interrupt while video, > > > like MIDI, relies heavily on timers. > > > > In interbench it's not driven by a soundcard interrupt. > > > > > > OK. Con, any idea why video is so much more affected than audio?
In the emulation, video vs audio is 40% cpu vs 5% cpu, 16.7ms frames instead of 50ms frames. When your cpu requirements are higher and your frames are shorter the likelihood of dropping a frame, especially under load, will skyrocket as your timing granularity decreases. Clearly 250HZ is not as good as 1000HZ for this, and I assume your midi example. Cheers, Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
