Oops i messed up the quoting a little bit. Here's Morton's answer: Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:58:54 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> To: Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas@xxxxxxx> Cc: linux-audio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Low Latency patches and kernel 2.6.x 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). End forwarded message -- music: http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/florianschmidt.htm
