Re: [BUG 2579] linux 2.6.* sound problems (SOLVED)

[Bill Davidsen]

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:18 +0100, Patrizio Bassi wrote:
>
> > Jeffrey Hundstad ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > > Since you're going to 250 Hz.  Please, if you would, see if you can
> > > tell any performance change and report that as well.  I'm more than a
> > > little skeptical that you'll notice.  BTW: Your battery life should be
> > > a little better at 100 Hz also.
> >
> > sincerely i can notice that task and application switching is a bit slower.
> > i have a 500mhz cpu so i think i can notice a bit the difference.
> > i can't estimate it mmm...
> > i'll say no more that 5-8%.
> > but i don't know where i'm gaining speed..
>
>
> Um, wasn't a consensus reached at OLS two years ago that the target for
> desktop responsiveness would be 1ms which is impossible with HZ=100 or
> 250?

Go back and reread the thread in the archives. The short answer is that 
he who controls the code controls the decisions. I just fix it 
everywhere, since 250 is too fast for optimal battery life, too slow for 
optimal response or multimedia, and not optimal for any server 
application I run (usenet, dns, mail, http, firewall).

A perfect compromise is one which makes everyone reasonably happy; this 
is like the XOR of that, it leaves everyone slightly dissatisfied. ;-)

I'm convinced that Linus choose this value to make everyone slightly 
unhappy, so development of various variable rate and tick skipping 
projects would continue. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have 
happened :-(

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/