On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:58:54 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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). > -- music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm
