Hi , it's not my intention only to reply to sender, a mix of mailprogram & incompetence ... about 50/50 ....
Anyhow, sorry, and here are the links for all .... Still, I really hope this is a good idea and we get some low-latency kernels built, and when RT goes in mainline, it's an easy transition :-D ... / Lars Segerlund. 2011/7/12 Luis Henriques <[email protected]> > Hi, > > (why do you keep replying only to the sender?) > > Lars Segerlund <[email protected]> writes: > > > Here is a link to the FAQ on the matter on the RT wiki : > > > > https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions# > > What_are_real-time_capabilities_of_the_stock_2.6_linux_kernel.3F > > > > Also if you check : https://www.osadl.org/ > > Realtime-Linux.projects-realtime-linux.0.html > > > > The time is coming closer when RT is in mainline :-D > > Well, we keep hearing this for ages now... :-) > > I guess there's still a long way to go, and as Linus doesn't seem very > excited about it, so it can take a while. > > > I think CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARy is a good choise for the default, since > > CONFIG_PREEMPT might give a performance penalty for some loads, I think a > > separate kernel packet for low-latency or something would be a good > choise. > > I see your point, but I'm still not convinced that for a desktop system > (the -generic flavour in Debian) CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is the best > choice (but I don't have any numbers to prove otherwise). I've been > using the CONFIG_PREEMPT on my laptop for ages, and actually used > PREEMPT_RT for a while as well. > > (btw, another interesting possibility for the desktop would be the > BFS... but let's not start this discussion :-) ). > > > High resolution timers are also needed but I think they are configed as > > default. > > Yes, it is. > > > It would be so nice for 2.6.39 or 3.0 ... to stop having to rebuild all > the > > time ... > > What's wrong with rebuilding the kernel? > > $ uname -r > 3.0.0-rc7 > > :-) > > Cheers, > -- > Luis Henriques >
