22 Dec
2003
22 Dec
'03
5:09 p.m.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:58:54 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm(a)osdl.org> wrote:
Ok, it seems that the list only takes mails from subscribers. sorry for
that.. This mail will let the others see your answer. Thanks for taking
the time. I will do some testing with 2.6. I will report back to you how
it goes [after the holidays]. Have a nice xmas :)
Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
--
music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm
Hi Andrew,
i'm a user of a 2.4.22 kernel patched with the preemption patches
plus your Low Latency patches. It works very nicely for audio
applications[like jackd, ardour, etc...].
Cool.
Looking into the config menu of the 2.6.0 kernel
i only find a
"preemptible kernel" config option. Your low latency patches seem
not to be included. Do you have plans of including your patches in
the 2.6.x kernel? I heard rumors about merging the preemptible and
your LL patches since they seem to go very nicely together.. Any
truth to that?
The objective in 2.6 is that the preemptible kernel achieve similar
worst-case latencies to the low-latency-patched kernel. So 2.6 should
meet your requirements out of the box.
That being said, last time I instrumented the 2.6 kernel it was not
achieving the targets. The specific failure was occurring when the
machine had a very large number of inodes in cache and the VM system
was reclaiming those inodes.
It is unlikely that you will strike this problem in real-world usage,
so 2.6 should work fine for you. As ever, testing results would be
appreciated.
(The inode reclaim problem is fairly complex, but I just happen to see
a patch from Dipankar Sarma in my inbox this morning which is designed
to fix it up).