11 Oct
2004
11 Oct
'04
12:14 a.m.
As Lee Revell has pointed out, there are bugs with
voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 as I have posted them on this list.
So I have been waiting for an mm3-s10 patch so I can try again, but I
have noticed that a new patch is ready for the T(x) set of patches. I
asked before about these patches and I ws told that it has something
to do with a stack of some sort.
My question is: does the voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm3-T3 patch have
all the low-latency goodness of the S(x) series: e.g. should I try this
out, or is it designed for some specific hardware set.
Also what is the story with the undo-lockmeter-2.6.9-rc3-mm3-A1?
Thanks for the info and the help!
-thewade
11 Oct
11 Oct
1:29 a.m.
On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 21:56, thewade wrote:
As Lee Revell has pointed out, there are bugs with
voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 as I have posted them on this list.
So I have been waiting for an mm3-s10 patch so I can try again, but I
have noticed that a new patch is ready for the T(x) set of patches. I
asked before about these patches and I ws told that it has something
to do with a stack of some sort.
The S9, T3 etc. part of the patch just refers to the voluntary preempt
version. Seems like the letter increase with big or user visible
changes, and the numbers are bug fix releases.
My question is: does the
voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm3-T3 patch have
all the low-latency goodness of the S(x) series: e.g. should I try this
out, or is it designed for some specific hardware set.
Yes, you should always use the latest version for now. This might
change in the future if stable/dev branches are created. But, I don't
think Ingo has time to maintain a stable release.
T3 seems to be quite stable.
Also what is the story with the
undo-lockmeter-2.6.9-rc3-mm3-A1?
That is just for the benefit of the MontaVista developers porting their
RT work to mm3-T3. You don't need it.
Lee
7:47 a.m.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:45:39 -0400
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
Yes, you should always use the latest version for now.
This might
change in the future if stable/dev branches are created. But, I don't
think Ingo has time to maintain a stable release.
T3 seems to be quite stable.
T3 just doesn't work right for me (xruns, ardour getting kicked off the jack
graph, etc..). T1 is much more reliable for me here..
Test several ones, and use the one that works best for you.
flo
11:06 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Florian Schmidt wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:45:39 -0400
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
i have tested T1 and T3 now. and i am able to play out a 10 track
session through -n 3 -p 8 -r 48000
i did not have success with qjackctl.
only with jackstart through the console.
there seems to be an issue with the popening of jackd...
and i also get a segfault in ardour and jack, when i try to export a
session (only with VP kernel)
can anybody veryfy this ?
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
Yes, you should always use the latest version for
now. This might
change in the future if stable/dev branches are created. But, I don't
think Ingo has time to maintain a stable release.
T3 seems to be quite stable.
T3 just doesn't work right for me (xruns, ardour getting kicked off the jack
graph, etc..). T1 is much more reliable for me here..
Test several ones, and use the one that works best for you 
11:43 a.m.
--- torbenh(a)gmx.de wrote:
there seems to be an issue with the popening of
jackd...
and i also get a segfault in ardour and jack, when i
try to export a
session (only with VP kernel)
can anybody veryfy this ?
jackd has always produced the startup xrun. The Ardour
Session Export always produces xruns with any kernel
I've used. I think they are both known issues.
ron
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio
language
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
12:07 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:25:58AM -0700, R Parker wrote:
--- torbenh(a)gmx.de wrote:
i did not talk xrun here.
segfault.
--
torben Hohn
http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio language
there seems to be an issue with the popening of
jackd...
and i also get a segfault in ardour and jack, when i
try to export a
session (only with VP kernel)
can anybody veryfy this ?
jackd has always produced the startup xrun. The Ardour
Session Export always produces xruns with any kernel
I've used. I think they are both known issues. 
12:10 p.m.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:56:35 -0600, thewade <pdman(a)aproximation.org> wrote:
As Lee Revell has pointed out, there are bugs with
voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 as I have posted them on this list.
You - 2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 (some problems?)
Me - 2.6.9-rc2-mm4-S7 (good on laptop for 3-4 days now)
Me - Planetedge on desktop (HDSP driver won't allow -p less than 64)
Lee - 2.6.9-xxx-xxx-T3 (seems happy)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx-xxx-T3 (problems)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx.xxx-T1 (stable)
Nobody is really testing the same thing. (Much less the same code with
different compile time options...) Different machines, different
chipsets. Probably different sample rates, diffeent sound cards,
different p and n settings. I think results are hard to compare.
-Mark
12:53 p.m.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:52:50 -0700
Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:56:35 -0600, thewade
<pdman(a)aproximation.org> wrote:
This is the _current_ state of affairs. Of course Lee, me and others have
tested other versions of the VP kernels, too. I'd suggest reading through
the relevant lkml threads to see if someone reported problems with each
particular version.
One interesting thing i observed was that ingo decided to put VP ontop of mm
when it started to get really useful. But of course mm kernels themselfes
are experimental kernels, so when testing a newer VP kernel one actually is
kind of involuntarily used as a tester for experimental mm features, making
it even harder to suggest a "stable" VP kernel to anyone. Especially since
mm kernels often seem to be really really b0rk3n. Dunno if it's ever gonna
change again. Lee, you got more details on plans of getting VP into vanilla?
flo
As Lee Revell has pointed out, there are bugs
with
voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 as I have posted them on this list.
You - 2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 (some problems?)
Me - 2.6.9-rc2-mm4-S7 (good on laptop for 3-4 days now)
Me - Planetedge on desktop (HDSP driver won't allow -p less than 64)
Lee - 2.6.9-xxx-xxx-T3 (seems happy)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx-xxx-T3 (problems)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx.xxx-T1 (stable)
Nobody is really testing the same thing. (Much less the same code with
different compile time options...) Different machines, different
chipsets. Probably different sample rates, diffeent sound cards,
different p and n settings. I think results are hard to compare. 
1:08 p.m.
Florian Schmidt wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:52:50 -0700
Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Florian,
Sure. I understand the basic picture. I don't see any of these
kernels as 'stable' but rather a way to address issues we run into at
given times.
I guess that without really saying it, and understanding that audio
does not drive every single requirement on this set of machines, it
makes me wonder if we wouldn't be better off as a group to have a
current 'LAU testing configuration' for the group of us that wants and
needs this stuff? If we all tested the same kernel and the same patches,
wouldn't our inputs back to lkml be possibly more relavant?
For instance, someone paying attention to lkml would post a specific
configuration via an LAU web page every so often. (1/week? 1/month?
etc...) We as a group would build it ourselves and then report back
results here. One of us would collect together the results (if required)
and report back.
I'm just sensing that everyone doing their own thing makes it harder
to know why things happen.
- Mark
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:56:35 -0600, thewade
<pdman(a)aproximation.org> wrote:
This is the _current_ state of affairs. Of course Lee, me and others have
tested other versions of the VP kernels, too. I'd suggest reading through
the relevant lkml threads to see if someone reported problems with each
particular version.
One interesting thing i observed was that ingo decided to put VP ontop of mm
when it started to get really useful. But of course mm kernels themselfes
are experimental kernels, so when testing a newer VP kernel one actually is
kind of involuntarily used as a tester for experimental mm features, making
it even harder to suggest a "stable" VP kernel to anyone. Especially since
mm kernels often seem to be really really b0rk3n. Dunno if it's ever gonna
change again. Lee, you got more details on plans of getting VP into vanilla?
flo
As Lee Revell has pointed out, there are bugs
with
voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 as I have posted them on this list.
You - 2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 (some problems?)
Me - 2.6.9-rc2-mm4-S7 (good on laptop for 3-4 days now)
Me - Planetedge on desktop (HDSP driver won't allow -p less than 64)
Lee - 2.6.9-xxx-xxx-T3 (seems happy)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx-xxx-T3 (problems)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx.xxx-T1 (stable)
Nobody is really testing the same thing. (Much less the same code with
different compile time options...) Different machines, different
chipsets. Probably different sample rates, diffeent sound cards,
different p and n settings. I think results are hard to compare. 
3:59 p.m.
On Monday 11 Oct 2004 14:52, Mark Knecht wrote:
You - 2.6.9-rc3-mm2-S9 (some problems?)
Me - 2.6.9-rc2-mm4-S7 (good on laptop for 3-4 days now)
Me - Planetedge on desktop (HDSP driver won't allow -p less than
64) Lee - 2.6.9-xxx-xxx-T3 (seems happy)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx-xxx-T3 (problems)
Florian - X.X.X-xxx.xxx-T1 (stable)
I'm using rc1-R9 on one setup and rc3-mm3-T3 on another (x86 SMP), and
they're both working pretty well.
Chris
7395
days inactive
7396
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Chris Cannam -
Florian Schmidt -
Jack O'Quin -
Lee Revell -
Mark Knecht -
Mark Knecht -
R Parker -
thewade -
torbenh＠gmx.de