Perhaps you're so far out on the leading edge of audio kernel
configuration that you're pursuing things nobody else is doing yet?
Document well what you do, you may be blazing the trail!
Paul Neaveill wrote:
Thanks to my neighbor a few hours north, Brent for
the confirmation.
Was not aware of any "quota" on questions and did not mean to monopolize
anything, just trying to learn some things here. Apologies if error was
made.
Thanks to Brent's assist, am now aware that those are IRQ statements,
but still uncertain where to plug those in. Guess will keep googling in
search of answers.
Paul
--- On *Tue, 8/4/09, Brent Busby /<brent(a)keycorner.org>/* wrote:
From: Brent Busby <brent(a)keycorner.org>
Subject: Re: [LAU] resubmitting questions from last week
To: "Linux Audio User" <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>,
"Paul Neaveill" <boycotthell2005(a)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 1:35 PM
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Paul Neaveill wrote:
Sorry if someone responded and we missed it, but
despite much
googling and all of that, am still working on getting my own
kernel(s) [2 machines] going with the following as had been
suggested last week:
preempt_RCU
No_Hz
HZ_1000
and the other Rock-solid low-latency audio tweaks
99 ff migration
99 ff posixcputmr
98 ff IRQ-8 (real-time clock)
97 ff audio IRQ
80 rr Jack
Found the preempt_RCU and HZ_1000 spots in the debian/ubuntu
kernel hack,
still looking for the rest please.?
** Would really appreciate the assistance with figuring out
where/how to put
those.
I never did get an answer to some of those questions either, so I
figured maybe I'd been asking too many. (I have been posting a lot
of them lately.)
I think the ones you've got at the top for kernel options should be
safe. I'm going to try -- at least initially -- not adjusting any
IRQ priorities though. It might work, considering I've got a fast
machine, and from what I hear, there are even people getting away
with ordinary non-RT kernels these days.
Preempt RCU was supposed to be buggy for awhile, but tested now for
two years... (Source: LKML)
Somebody said NO_HZ was actually a good thing on a laptop being used
for pro-audio, and I suppose if you can do well on a laptop you can
do well anywhere... (Source: Some guy with a laptop.)
And HZ_1000 is recommended almost everywhere.
I don't know what the meaning of NO_HZ and HZ_1000 is together, but
I guess it'd mean a jiffy rate of 1000Hz, but only when interrupts
are needed?
I'm just putting stuff together from lots of googling too...