Lowlatency kernel testing (Re: A feature for -lowlatency kernel?)
ailo.at at gmail.com
Wed Apr 6 01:50:01 UTC 2011
Ironically, I am getting very nice results this second time I am trying
the 2.6.38-7 -generic kernel. Using the trace, however, causes a lot of
audio dropouts when using a low latency setting.
I will give it some more time. Hopefully, things will stay like this, then.
On 04/06/2011 02:36 AM, ailo wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 09:13 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
>>> I'm testing the 2.6.38-7 -generic, and it is in fact working better than
>>> before. Almost as well as -lowlatency.
>> Only almost?
>> Anyway, that's kind of why I've losing faith in lowlatency personally -
>> I have yet to see someone showing me that it actually performs better
>> than the generic kernel.
> I have not been able to achieve as low latencies with -generic as with
> -lowlatency, except for once, which was on 2.6.38-1. At the time,
> -generic seemed to behave exactly the same as -lowlatency, however after
> a system update, the same -generic kernel would not give me low
> latencies without audio dropouts anymore.
> Two of us got the same initial result with 2.6.38-1, so I'm pretty sure
> it was not something I dreamt :P.
> After that, for a good while, -generic was not usable with jackd for
> latencies that are required for playing soft instruments, or monitoring
> realtime audio processing.
> Now, with 2.6.38-7, -generic seems to behave a good deal better, but I
> can still not get the same low latency as I can with -lowlatency.
> Also, during this whole period, -lowlatency has been more or less,
> perfectly stable, and virtually as reliable as a realtime patched kernel.
> The diff in my tests may be more related to me picking up problems
> during later tests, that I didn't pick up during my first tests. Or
> something in Ubuntu other than the kernel is affecting that in later tests.
> So, my opinion is, I have still to see proof of -generic behaving as
> reliably as -lowlatency.
More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-devel