Perhaps you're so far out on the leading edge of audio kernel configuration that you're pursuing things nobody else is doing yet? Document well what you do, you may be blazing the trail! Paul Neaveill wrote: > Thanks to my neighbor a few hours north, Brent for the confirmation. > Was not aware of any "quota" on questions and did not mean to monopolize > anything, just trying to learn some things here. Apologies if error was > made. > > Thanks to Brent's assist, am now aware that those are IRQ statements, > but still uncertain where to plug those in. Guess will keep googling in > search of answers. > > > Paul > > > --- On *Tue, 8/4/09, Brent Busby /<brent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote: > > > From: Brent Busby <brent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: resubmitting questions from last week > To: "Linux Audio User" <linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > "Paul Neaveill" <boycotthell2005@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 1:35 PM > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Paul Neaveill wrote: > > > Sorry if someone responded and we missed it, but despite much > googling and all of that, am still working on getting my own > kernel(s) [2 machines] going with the following as had been > suggested last week: > > > > preempt_RCU > > No_Hz > > HZ_1000 > > > > and the other Rock-solid low-latency audio tweaks > > 99 ff migration > > 99 ff posixcputmr > > 98 ff IRQ-8 (real-time clock) > > 97 ff audio IRQ > > 80 rr Jack > > > > Found the preempt_RCU and HZ_1000 spots in the debian/ubuntu > kernel hack, still looking for the rest please.? > > > > ** Would really appreciate the assistance with figuring out > where/how to put those. > > I never did get an answer to some of those questions either, so I > figured maybe I'd been asking too many. (I have been posting a lot > of them lately.) > > I think the ones you've got at the top for kernel options should be > safe. I'm going to try -- at least initially -- not adjusting any > IRQ priorities though. It might work, considering I've got a fast > machine, and from what I hear, there are even people getting away > with ordinary non-RT kernels these days. > > Preempt RCU was supposed to be buggy for awhile, but tested now for > two years... (Source: LKML) > > Somebody said NO_HZ was actually a good thing on a laptop being used > for pro-audio, and I suppose if you can do well on a laptop you can > do well anywhere... (Source: Some guy with a laptop.) > > And HZ_1000 is recommended almost everywhere. > > I don't know what the meaning of NO_HZ and HZ_1000 is together, but > I guess it'd mean a jiffy rate of 1000Hz, but only when interrupts > are needed? > > I'm just putting stuff together from lots of googling too... -- David gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx authenticity, honesty, community _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
