linux-kernel - Timing 250 versus 1000

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4F815FCE.5040002@yandex.ru>
Date:	Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:52:14 +0400
From:	Alex Stone <alex.parchment@...dex.ru>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Timing 250 versus 1000

No doubt i'm likely to get hammered for asking this on a technical ML, 
but i'm brave enough and interested enough to risk it.

Is there an important reason why timing in the kernel is set to 250 by 
default?

I'm using linux to write music with. With the addition of many of the RT 
patches in the standard kernel, recording audio at low latencies with a 
standard kernel is no longer a problem, but for those of us who write a 
lot of midi driven work, we're still more or less required to use some 
sort of RT kernel to get any degree of playback timing accuracy.

I appreciate my use case is just one among many, but i've done a lot of 
research on the interlink, and unless i'm missing something really 
simple here, i can't find a reason why the default timer can't be set at 
1000, and be done with it.

I appreciate you chaps are busy, and elbow deep in code, just a "yes it 
could" or "no we won't" would suffice.

Thanks,

Alex.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/