No subject
Wed Feb 27 02:06:33 EST 2008
<br>
<br>
# wget <a href=3D"ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.23.1=
.tar.bz2" target=3D"_blank">ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linu=
x-2.6.23.1.tar.bz2</a><br>
# wget <a href=3D"http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/patch-=
2.6.23.1-rt11.bz2" target=3D"_blank">http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel=
/projects/rt/patch-2.6.23.1-rt11.bz2</a><br>
# tar xfj linux-2.6.23.1.tar.bz2<br>
# cd linux-2.6.23.1<br>
# bzcat2 ../patch-2.6.23.1-rt11.bz2 | patch -p1<br>
<br>
The above is for 2.6.23. If you were going to do it you might as well<br>
go for 2.6.24.<br>
<br>
Changing the kernel itself should not cause any changes in the<br>
stability of your applications. They really exist at a higher level<br>
and just talk to the kernel underneath it. If a new minor revision<br>
kernel upgrade breaks an application I think it would generally be<br>
considered a regression in the kernel and would get fixed. I have<br>
kernels ranging back to 2.6.14. they all work.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps,<br>
<font color=3D"#888888">Mark<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"Wj3C7c"><br>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Arda Eden <<a href=3D"mailto:ardaeden@=
gmail.com">ardaeden at gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I'm a PARDUS (a Turkish GNU/Linux distro) user so that the latest =
kernel<br>
> provided by my distro developers is 2.6.18.8-86. I can't know why =
they don't<br>
> complile a new one but i think that it's about the stability of mo=
st<br>
> applications provided by thet distro.<br>
><br>
> Which distro of Linux is most suitable for most linux audio applicatio=
ns ?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Mark Knecht <<a href=3D"mailto:mar=
kknecht at gmail.com">markknecht at gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > That kernel is getting pretty old. I'm running 2.6.24-rt1 her=
e. you<br>
> > might want to check out the RT-Wiki or some of the sites for usin=
g RT<br>
> > kernels with audio apps.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > <a href=3D"http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page" target=
=3D"_blank">http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page</a><br>
> ><br>
> > The above link gives instructions for patching a kernel to get to=
an RT<br>
> kernel.<br>
> ><br>
> > Hope this helps,<br>
> > Mark<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Arda Eden <<a href=3D"mailto=
:ardaeden at gmail.com">ardaeden at gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > Hmm,<br>
> > > So this is all about my kernel:<br>
> > > Linux melinda 2.6.18.8-86 #2 SMP Mon Feb 11 00:50:59 EET 200=
8 i686<br>
> mobile<br>
> > > AMD Athlon(tm) XP-M 2200+ GNU/Linux<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Is it possible to patch it in order to make it a RT kernel ?=
<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Mark Knecht <<a href=3D"=
mailto:markknecht at gmail.com">markknecht at gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Arda Eden <<a href=
=3D"mailto:ardaeden at gmail.com">ardaeden at gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > > > > So what does a realtime kernel change ? Makes my l=
atency 1 ms ?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Arnold Krille<br>
> <<a href=3D"mailto:arnold at arnoldarts.de">arnold at arnoldarts.de</a>&g=
t;<br>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Am Dienstag, 18. M=E4rz 2008 schrieb Mark Kne=
cht:<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Arda E=
den <<a href=3D"mailto:ardaeden at gmail.com">ardaeden at gmail.com</a>><br=
>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > > > > > > > So is it really necessary to have a=
realtime kernel in order<br>
> to<br>
> > > use<br>
> > > > > linux<br>
> > > > > > > > audio applications without any late=
ncies or xruns ?<br>
> > > > > > > It is not possible to use ANY kernel wit=
h NO latencies. EVERY<br>
> kernel<br>
> > > > > > > has latencies. The question is how low d=
o you want the latencies<br>
> to<br>
> > > > > > > be? If you can exist with 50mS or higher=
you might get away with<br>
> a<br>
> > > > > > > standard kernel. If you want to run with=
1.2mS latency then you<br>
> will<br>
> > > > > > > absolutely have to have a real-time enab=
led kernel.<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Still it has to be noted that you can achieve=
5ms latency without<br>
> a<br>
> > > > > > RT-kernel... Even with an el-cheapo builtin s=
oundcard...<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Arnold<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Absolutely. The most recent kernels are often quite goo=
d. However I<br>
> > > > would say that the difference between a standard kernel=
running 5mS<br>
> > > > and a RT kernel running 5mS is that the RT kernel is fa=
r more likely<br>
> > > > to meet the 5mS requirement under heavy system loads wh=
ile the<br>
> > > > standard kernel may, at times, give a bit too much time=
to non-rt<br>
> > > > threads and not get back to your audio thread as fast a=
s someone might<br>
> > > > want.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > If you want the highest reliability means of meeting yo=
ur RT<br>
> > > > requirements all the time then use the RT kernel. If yo=
u are just<br>
> > > > doing home recording and can accept an occasional xrun =
(i.e. - a<br>
> > > > glitch in the recorded data) then stick with the standa=
rd kernel for<br>
> > > > as long as it works for you.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Just my view,<br>
> > > > Mark<br>
> > > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > --<br>
> > > Arda EDEN<br>
> > > Cumhuriyet University<br>
> > > Faculty of Fine Arts<br>
> > > Department of Music Technology<br>
> > > Sivas/TURKEY<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Arda EDEN<br>
> Cumhuriyet University<br>
> Faculty of Fine Arts<br>
> Department of Music Technology<br>
> Sivas/TURKEY<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Arda EDEN<b=
r>Cumhuriyet University<br>Faculty of Fine Arts<br>Department of Music Tech=
nology<br>Sivas/TURKEY
------=_Part_17476_4389071.1205879775901--
More information about the Linux-audio-user
mailing list