[LAU] Kernel 2.6.39

Oon-Ee Ng ngoonee.talk at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 09:17:39 UTC 2011


On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:02 PM, david <gnome at hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> sonofzev at iinet.net.au wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> could there be any disadvantages for averaged desktop users, server
>>> usage etc., if the kernel 2.6.39 is build as PREEMPT kernel?
>>>
>>> Today I installed the kernel from the repositories of a major Distro:
>>>
>>> $ uname -a
>>> Linux debian 2.6.39-2-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 8 11:01:04 UTC 2011 x86_64
>>> GNU/Linux
>>>
>>> Some time ago I build the kernel myself:
>>>
>>> $ uname -a
>>> Linux debian 2.6.39.1 #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 7 01:40:05 CEST 2011 x86_64
>>> GNU/Linux
>>>
>>> I'm asking, because I want to know, if it would be reasonable to appeal,
>>> that major distros should build it as PREEMPT kernel.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>> _________
>>
>> Hi Ralf,
>> My understanding that there would probably be not much differences for
>> desktop
>> users. However (most) server users would not want a pre-emptively built as
>> they
>> generally require to share their services whereas pre-emption can cause
>> delays on
>> some services...
>> FWIW - this is only my limited understanding..  I have a pre-emptive
>> kernel on my
>> general purpose laptop.. On my home server I have no latency on low value
>> kernel
>> timer.. .
>>
>> I recommend either building your own kernel (fairly easy, especially if
>> you save
>> your config from previous builds).. Or getting a pre-built audio purpose
>> kernel..
>
> IIRC reading on this list sometime ago, the kernel folk don't want to
> incorporate RT PREEMPT into standard kernels because software running on the
> kernel can use RT stuff to cause a local DoS situation (the software using
> the RT functionality can make the kernel unavailable for non-RT uses). Or
> something like that!
>
> --
> David

He's talking about PREEMPT, not RT. Non-RT kernels have that config
option as well (CONFIG_PREEMPT)


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list