12 Jul
2005
12 Jul
'05
7:25 a.m.
Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me. I successfully patched 2.6.12
with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for Desktop-preempt, but
when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again ) to compile with the
full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
The sources are vanilla 2.6.12 from kernel.org.
Thanks
Iain
12 Jul
12 Jul
10:02 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
Iain Duncan <iainduncan(a)telus.net> writes:
Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me. I
successfully patched
2.6.12 with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for
Desktop-preempt, but when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again
) to compile with the full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
If you can, disable the sx8 driver.
--
CYa,
Mario
6 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
Hi folks,
wondering if anyone can help me. I successfully patched
2.6.12 with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for
Desktop-preempt, but when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again
) to compile with the full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
If you can, disable the sx8 driver. 
11:10 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
Iain Duncan wrote:
Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me. I
successfully patched 2.6.12
with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for Desktop-preempt, but
when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again ) to compile with the
full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
shayne
1:05 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 23:10 +1000, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
Iain Duncan wrote:
Sounds like a bug, you should probably report it to Ingo.
Lee
Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me. I
successfully patched 2.6.12
with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for Desktop-preempt, but
when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again ) to compile with the
full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
6:09 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 23:10 +1000, Shayne O'Connor
wrote:
I tried a quick google search for a ways to send that to Ingo but found
nothing. Do you have a convenient way of forwarding it to him? It is
supposed to be applied to plain old vanilla 2.6.12 right?
Thanks
iain
Iain Duncan wrote:
Sounds like a bug, you should probably report it to Ingo. Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me. I
successfully patched 2.6.12
with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for Desktop-preempt, but
when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again ) to compile with the
full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
6:24 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 13:07 -0700, Iain Duncan wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
Yes, his email is mingo at elte.hu. Please also cc: linux-kernel at
vger.kernel.org.
Lee
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 23:10 +1000, Shayne
O'Connor wrote:
I tried a quick google search for a ways to send that to Ingo but found
nothing. Do you have a convenient way of forwarding it to him? It is
supposed to be applied to plain old vanilla 2.6.12 right? Iain Duncan wrote:
Sounds like a bug, you should probably report it to Ingo. Hi folks, wondering if anyone can help me. I
successfully patched 2.6.12
with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for Desktop-preempt, but
when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again ) to compile with the
full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to `there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
5:59 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
Hi folks,
wondering if anyone can help me. I successfully patched
2.6.12 with the latest Ingo patch with the settings for
Desktop-preempt, but when I try ( on a clean source tree patched again
) to compile with the full preempt option I'm getting:
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o(.text+0xabbad): In function `carm_init_one':
: undefined reference to
`there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
Anyone had this? The patch I am using is:
realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-27
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
6:38 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:57 -0700, Iain Duncan wrote:
If the error was in building a module that you don't use, then it would
be harmless. This seems to be the case.
Lee
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
Huh? Does that mean the kernel image is built anyway? I was under the
impression that it meant it didn't finish compiling? Am I confused?
7:03 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
yeah, i got this as well ... hasn't seemed to have
any noticeable
effects, though.
Huh? Does that mean the kernel image is built anyway? I was under the
impression that it meant it didn't finish compiling? Am I confused?
9:30 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
Iain Duncan wrote:
If the error was in building a module that you don't use, then it would
be harmless. This seems to be the case.
Ah, excuse my ignorance please, but does that mean the rest *did* build,
or I need to somehow comment out building that module and do it again?
And if so, how would I do that? In the kernel makefile?
hmmm ... when i built mine, i didn't get that message until doing:
sudo make modules_install
... it went through the process of installing the modules, and then -
the very last line - it gave me:
yeah, i got
this as well ... hasn't seemed to have any noticeable
effects, though.
Huh? Does that mean the kernel image is built anyway? I was under the
impression that it meant it didn't finish compiling? Am I confused? : undefined reference to
`there_is_no_init_MUTEX_LOCKED_for_RT_semaphores'
and it also gave me the same deal when doing:
sudo make install.
so, unless it compiled all the drivers/modules *before* exiting with
error, i would try to find out the driver/module that is failing to
compile, assess whether you need it or not, and try again (using "make
gconfig").
shayne
13 Jul
13 Jul
5:08 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12
hmmm ... when i built mine, i didn't get that
message until doing:
sudo make modules_install
Just tried it again doing make seperately from make modules_install and
it failed on the make stage.
Iain
12 Jul
12 Jul
2:12 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
Hello,
I've just joined the list and it's pretty interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
Greetings from Germany
- Marcel Karras
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: toka(a)freebits.de karma(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
http://www.freebits.de http://www.tu-chemnitz.de
Unix, Linux && OpenSource Student of Chemnitz University of Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:41 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
I've just joined the list and it's pretty
interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between
the preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux
Security Module"? I currently use the latter one and I'm
quite satisfied as jack works really fast. Perhaps one
should try this way instead of the vanilla kernel patch.
There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
same for me, but RT-LSM has been dropped by Andrew Morton in
the 2.6.12-mm kernels, so we should start using preemt.
Unfortunately, even for me RT-LSM gives much better results
than preemption. And even with the RT-LSM I get "only"
16msecs latencies.
Best regards
ce
13 Jul
13 Jul
1:10 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:42:29PM +0200, Christoph Eckert wrote:
Christoph, is there any reason you wouldn't use both preemption and
rt-lsm at the same time?
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
I've just
joined the list and it's pretty interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between
the preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux
Security Module"? I currently use the latter one and I'm
quite satisfied as jack works really fast. Perhaps one
should try this way instead of the vanilla kernel patch.
There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
same for me, but RT-LSM has been dropped by Andrew Morton
in
the 2.6.12-mm kernels, so we should start using preemt.
Unfortunately, even for me RT-LSM gives much better results
than preemption. And even with the RT-LSM I get "only"
16msecs latencies.
12 Jul
12 Jul
2:47 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:11:55PM +0200, Marcel Karras wrote:
Hello,
I've just joined the list and it's pretty interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
The LSM and Ingo's patches are addressing 2 separate issues. Ingo's
patch is working to minimize sources of latency in various code paths in
the kernel. The rtlimits and the realtime-lsm are addressing the issue
of providing a security model for realtime applications to get the
capabilities they need to run in real-time. Ordinarilly these
capabilities (CAP_SET_PCAP, mlockall(), and SCHED_FIFO()) are only
accessible as root. rtlimits and the realtime-lsm provide infrastructure
for allowing these capabilities to be granted to only a specified set of
users/processes.
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
3:25 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:47:21 -0400
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:11:55PM +0200, Marcel
Karras wrote:
Thank you so far! I've just found an interesting approach to that issue:
http://aplawrence.com/Blog2005/drag4.html
BTW: How can I figure out my current latency time? (are there valuable
benchmark tools?)
Thank you
- Marcel
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: toka(a)freebits.de karma(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de
http://www.freebits.de http://www.tu-chemnitz.de
Unix, Linux && OpenSource Student of Chemnitz University of Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I've just joined the list and it's pretty interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
The LSM and Ingo's patches are addressing 2 separate issues. Ingo's
patch is working to minimize sources of latency in various code paths in
the kernel. The rtlimits and the realtime-lsm are addressing the issue
of providing a security model for realtime applications to get the
capabilities they need to run in real-time. Ordinarilly these
capabilities (CAP_SET_PCAP, mlockall(), and SCHED_FIFO()) are only
accessible as root. rtlimits and the realtime-lsm provide infrastructure
for allowing these capabilities to be granted to only a specified set of
users/processes.
5:58 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
I've just
joined the list and it's pretty interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
The LSM and Ingo's patches are addressing 2 separate issues. Ingo's
patch is working to minimize sources of latency in various code paths in
the kernel. The rtlimits and the realtime-lsm are addressing the issue
of providing a security model for realtime applications to get the
capabilities they need to run in real-time. Ordinarilly these
capabilities (CAP_SET_PCAP, mlockall(), and SCHED_FIFO()) are only
accessible as root. rtlimits and the realtime-lsm provide infrastructure
for allowing these capabilities to be granted to only a specified set of
users/processes. 
6:46 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:56, Iain Duncan wrote:
So am I correct in believing that the preempt patch is the one that
makes a difference if I intend to run as root anyway?
It makes (should make?) a difference independent of whether you run as
root or not. If you run as root you can access everything. If you don't
run as root (highly recommended :-) you need some additional stuff to
get the same performance.
I've just joined the list and it's pretty
interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
The LSM and Ingo's patches are addressing 2 separate issues. Ingo's
patch is working to minimize sources of latency in various code paths in
the kernel. The rtlimits and the realtime-lsm are addressing the issue
of providing a security model for realtime applications to get the
capabilities they need to run in real-time. Ordinarilly these
capabilities (CAP_SET_PCAP, mlockall(), and SCHED_FIFO()) are only
accessible as root. rtlimits and the realtime-lsm provide infrastructure
for allowing these capabilities to be granted to only a specified set of
users/processes. ( Yeah I know I'm
not supposed to, but IMO my machine is just a synthesizer in disguise as
a computer and I'll unplug the ethernet cable if I need to. )
2.6.12 already includes the rlimits patch that will allow you to run
well as a non-root user. But you will need a patch to pam (if your
distro uses pam) or a special user program to access realtime scheduling
as a non-root user (was posted not long ago to this list).
-- Fernando
13 Jul
13 Jul
1:09 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:46:13PM -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:56, Iain Duncan wrote:
So am I correct in believing that the preempt patch is the one
that
makes a difference if I intend to run as root anyway? It makes (should make?) a
difference independent of whether you run as
root or not. If you run as root you can access everything. If you don't
run as root (highly recommended :-) you need some additional stuff to
get the same performance.
I vaguely recall that demudi stuck with the realtime-lsm for the current
version. Is this correct?
Are there deb packages of the patched pam available?
what about rpm's for ccrma?
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
I've just joined the list and it's pretty
interesting.
Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
someone point them out?
The LSM and Ingo's patches are addressing 2 separate
issues. Ingo's
patch is working to minimize sources of latency in various code paths in
the kernel. The rtlimits and the realtime-lsm are addressing the issue
of providing a security model for realtime applications to get the
capabilities they need to run in real-time. Ordinarilly these
capabilities (CAP_SET_PCAP, mlockall(), and SCHED_FIFO()) are only
accessible as root. rtlimits and the realtime-lsm provide infrastructure
for allowing these capabilities to be granted to only a specified set of
users/processes. ( Yeah I know I'm
not supposed to, but IMO my machine is just a synthesizer in disguise as
a computer and I'll unplug the ethernet cable if I need to. )
2.6.12 already
includes the rlimits patch that will allow you to run
well as a non-root user. But you will need a patch to pam (if your
distro uses pam) or a special user program to access realtime scheduling
as a non-root user (was posted not long ago to this list).
6:12 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Problems appling realtime preempt patch to 2.6.12 (general)
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 08:09, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:46:13PM -0700, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
The latest "edge" kernels on Planet CCRMA (for fc3/fc4) use rlimits and
the repository includes a matching patched pam...
-- Fernando
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:56, Iain Duncan wrote:
It makes (should make?) a
difference independent of whether you run as
root or not. If you run as root you can access everything. If you don't
run as root (highly recommended :-) you need some additional stuff to
get the same performance.
I vaguely recall that demudi stuck with the realtime-lsm for the current
version. Is this correct?
Are there deb packages of the patched pam available?
what about rpm's for ccrma?
>I've just joined the list and it's pretty interesting.
>Can someone tell me something about the differences between the
>preempt patch from Ingo and the "Realtime Linux Security Module"?
>I currently use the latter one and I'm quite satisfied as jack works
>really fast. Perhaps one should try this way instead of the vanilla
>kernel patch. There have to be pros and cons I'm interested in. Can
>someone point them out?
The LSM and Ingo's patches are addressing 2 separate issues. Ingo's
patch is working to minimize sources of latency in various code paths in
the kernel. The rtlimits and the realtime-lsm are addressing the issue
of providing a security model for realtime applications to get the
capabilities they need to run in real-time. Ordinarilly these
capabilities (CAP_SET_PCAP, mlockall(), and SCHED_FIFO()) are only
accessible as root. rtlimits and the realtime-lsm provide infrastructure
for allowing these capabilities to be granted to only a specified set of
users/processes.
So am I correct in believing that the preempt patch is the one
that
makes a difference if I intend to run as root anyway? ( Yeah I know I'm
not supposed to, but IMO my machine is just a synthesizer in disguise as
a computer and I'll unplug the ethernet cable if I need to. )
2.6.12 already
includes the rlimits patch that will allow you to run
well as a non-root user. But you will need a patch to pam (if your
distro uses pam) or a special user program to access realtime scheduling
as a non-root user (was posted not long ago to this list).
7075
days inactive
7076
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
20 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Christoph Eckert -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Iain Duncan -
Lee Revell -
Marcel Karras -
Mario Lang -
Shayne O'Connor