-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Lee Revell escribió: > On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 11:59 -0500, Gian Paolo Mureddu wrote: >> For instance Fedora Core 5 has the version of PAM required... >> Say, if I grab my kernel's .srpm, modify the spec to it includes >> this patch, make sure that this patch will play nice with the >> rest of the Fedora patches and am successful to build and install >> the generated kernel, how would I make use of the PAM controls to >> set user-space real-time priorities? >> > > Why do you want to recompile the kernel? It should Just Work with > the FC5 kernel. In fact there is no config option to disable the > nice and rtprio rlimits. This is why it's easier than realtime LSM > - no kernel patching is required. I was thinking on adding some low-latency and improved libata drivers amongst other stuff (like staircase sched from CK sources), and if I was going to do that anyway, I thought including the low-latency patches or PAM controls would have been a plus. > >> PS: I read the thread, but the e-mail containing the pam controls >> was accidentally erased, were those the ones needed with this >> patch? > > Add to /etc/security/limits.conf something like: > > * hard rtprio 99 * hard nice > -20 * soft nice -20 * hard > memlock 500000 > > There is some anecdotal evidence that "memlock" does not work. I > have not investigated it yet. > > Lee > > Thanks a LOT, Lee! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEfIEMXM+XOp70dwoRAr0dAJ4wICQv2qygnbIYD4nPWvDGS+6E3QCginCv k0m4UfDxjw/tljx+ND6dHYY= =R+4k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
