13 Feb
2004
13 Feb
'04
11:50 p.m.
Hi. I've read the stuff on the LAD website about the two low-latency
patch options for the 2.4 kernels -- Robert Love's preempt patch and
Andrew Morton's low-latency patch. Each are described as having
good and bad points in comparison. The way in which it's discussed
seems to suggest that one should choose one or the other; nowhere is
discussed whether it's a good or bad idea to apply both. But that
seems to be possible; the Debian package page for AM's low-latency
kernel patch indicates that it's compatible with the preempt patch.
So I guess I'm looking for advice about this. Are they indeed
compatible? Is there some reason why applying *both* would be a bad
thing?
Thanks for any info.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
14 Feb
14 Feb
12:22 a.m.
My understanding is that it is best to apply both. I have run both the
preempt and lowlatency patches on kernels ranging from 2.4.16 ( at least
, probably earlier) through 2.4.22 with very good results.
In the 2.6.x kernel series both sets of patches are included as
standard. Most of the lowlatency patches (if i understand correctly)
were merged into the 2.6.1 code base. The preempt patch has been in the
kernel as a configuration option since sometime in the 2.5.x development
series.
-Eric Rz
Chris Metzler wrote:
Hi. I've read the stuff on the LAD website about
the two low-latency
patch options for the 2.4 kernels -- Robert Love's preempt patch and
Andrew Morton's low-latency patch. Each are described as having
good and bad points in comparison. The way in which it's discussed
seems to suggest that one should choose one or the other; nowhere is
discussed whether it's a good or bad idea to apply both. But that
seems to be possible; the Debian package page for AM's low-latency
kernel patch indicates that it's compatible with the preempt patch.
So I guess I'm looking for advice about this. Are they indeed
compatible? Is there some reason why applying *both* would be a bad
thing?
Thanks for any info.
-c
11:35 a.m.
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:18:09 -0500
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <eric(a)zhevny.com> wrote:
My understanding is that it is best to apply both. I have run both the
preempt and lowlatency patches on kernels ranging from 2.4.16 ( at least
, probably earlier) through 2.4.22 with very good results.
Thanks. It just concerned me that in the online discussion of low
latency patches, there was lots of "which one is better." The only
discussion of *both* was in the linked-to threads from the LKML,
where it was discussed back in 2001 that they were in-principle
compatible and *could* be combined. I knew that all this stuff,
plus the O(1) scheduler, had made it into 2.6; but I'm holding off
on 2.6 until 1) I see a nice "how to transition from 2.4. to 2.6"
guide, and 2) I stop seeing so many complaints about getting things
to work under 2.6 here and in debian-user. I use this machine for
too much time-critical stuff to hunt for kernel installation stuff
just now . . .
Anyway, I patched my 2.4.23 with both and will boot it later today.
Thanks again.
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmetzler(a)speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
7642
days inactive
7643
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Chris Metzler -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki