Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hello, On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:35:17AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hi, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. How are things going? Just interest... Hhhm, well, I spottet a problem. The thing is that linux-rt does many deep changes in the kernel and I won't be able to support the harder problems. And upstream probably won't help because the Debian rt-kernel isn't a vanilla rt-kernel. Moreover even the broken out rt-patch isn't nicely sorted (e.g. bisectable, some patches undo changes of other patches earier in the series etc. pp), so I fear the Debian kernel team isn't filled with enthusiasm when asked to add an rt variant. I already thought about packaging debian-kernel + rt for Debian and vanilla-kernel + rt for a non-Debian package repository such that it's easy for bug reporters to try out a vanilla kernel. But that still needs more work. OK, the vanilla-kernel + rt is done. See http://mid.gmane.org/20090926171218.gd13...@pengutronix.de for an announcment and http://www.pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html for the documentation how to install it. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions| http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello, On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:35:17AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hi, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. How are things going? Just interest... Hhhm, well, I spottet a problem. The thing is that linux-rt does many deep changes in the kernel and I won't be able to support the harder problems. And upstream probably won't help because the Debian rt-kernel isn't a vanilla rt-kernel. Moreover even the broken out rt-patch isn't nicely sorted (e.g. bisectable, some patches undo changes of other patches earier in the series etc. pp), so I fear the Debian kernel team isn't filled with enthusiasm when asked to add an rt variant. I already thought about packaging debian-kernel + rt for Debian and vanilla-kernel + rt for a non-Debian package repository such that it's easy for bug reporters to try out a vanilla kernel. But that still needs more work. OK, the vanilla-kernel + rt is done. See http://mid.gmane.org/20090926171218.gd13...@pengutronix.de for an announcment and http://www.pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html for the documentation how to install it. Looks like this is great news! Thanks for your time and effort Uwe! \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hi, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. How are things going? Just interest... Hhhm, well, I spottet a problem. The thing is that linux-rt does many deep changes in the kernel and I won't be able to support the harder problems. And upstream probably won't help because the Debian rt-kernel isn't a vanilla rt-kernel. Moreover even the broken out rt-patch isn't nicely sorted (e.g. bisectable, some patches undo changes of other patches earier in the series etc. pp), so I fear the Debian kernel team isn't filled with enthusiasm when asked to add an rt variant. I already thought about packaging debian-kernel + rt for Debian and vanilla-kernel + rt for a non-Debian package repository such that it's easy for bug reporters to try out a vanilla kernel. But that still needs more work. I currently investigate how the Debian kernel packages are created. Any help is welcome. Probably the first step will be to create a vanilla-rt package, but that wont be accepted to go into Debian main. Just trying to keep thinks a bit alive here ;) How are things going Uwe? Kind regards, \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hi, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. How are things going? Just interest... Hhhm, well, I spottet a problem. The thing is that linux-rt does many deep changes in the kernel and I won't be able to support the harder problems. And upstream probably won't help because the Debian rt-kernel isn't a vanilla rt-kernel. Moreover even the broken out rt-patch isn't nicely sorted (e.g. bisectable, some patches undo changes of other patches earier in the series etc. pp), so I fear the Debian kernel team isn't filled with enthusiasm when asked to add an rt variant. I already thought about packaging debian-kernel + rt for Debian and vanilla-kernel + rt for a non-Debian package repository such that it's easy for bug reporters to try out a vanilla kernel. But that still needs more work. I currently investigate how the Debian kernel packages are created. Any help is welcome. Probably the first step will be to create a vanilla-rt package, but that wont be accepted to go into Debian main. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions| http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. How are things going? Just interest... \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. Thanks for the head up. I'm glad that there is work in progress and am able to wait with patience knowing that ;) \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hello, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. The patch I created that fits on Debian's vanilla kernel creates conflicts on the sources with the Debian patches. I hope to be able to clean that up by minimizing the -rt series (e.g. the first broken out patch consists usually of various bits from the -tip tree that are (AFAIK) not all needed.) So just have some more patience. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions| http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello, [your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than your's] To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package linux-2.6 Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step? thanks for thinking. Who could provide such a patch package? I can. I'd need a sponsor, though. I know two Debian developers, I will ask them. The patch on top of Debian's 2.6.29 is already made[1]---I just merged v2.6.29-rt1 and Debian's tree. Best regards Uwe [1] Available in my git repo at git://git.pengutronix.de/git/ukl/linux-2.6.git debian-rt or browsable at: http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=ukl/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=debian-rt The actual diff is at: http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=ukl/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=debian-rt;hp=debian/v2.6.29 Hi all, I was wondering about how far are we with implementing a RT kernel in Debian... Some progress here? Would be nice. Regards, \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hi! Uwe Kleine-König schrieb: [your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than your's] Well, at least it reached me ;) Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step? thanks for thinking. Who could provide such a patch package? I can. I'd need a sponsor, though. I know two Debian developers, I will ask them. Willing to sponsor as soon as you've got a package to test ready. Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hi Alexander, On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:22:02AM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: Hi! Uwe Kleine-König schrieb: [your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than your's] Well, at least it reached me ;) Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step? thanks for thinking. Who could provide such a patch package? I can. I'd need a sponsor, though. I know two Debian developers, I will ask them. Willing to sponsor as soon as you've got a package to test ready. Great thanks. I plan to package rt-tests, too. Maybe you can sponser that, too? Expect me to contact you via irc to go into details. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions| http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
2009/3/28 Andreas Tille til...@rki.de On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote: debian stable aims to production servers, That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like Openoffice.org or audio players or ... Yes, I meant that. IMO multimedia users can/should live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates. I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes. Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for users. (Yes, I admit I use testing in the way you describe - but *I* know what I'm doing.) You're right, *we* know what we're doing... Kind regards Andreas. regards r
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Andreas Tille wrote: On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote: debian stable aims to production servers, That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like Openoffice.org or audio players or ... IMO multimedia users can/should live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates. I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes. Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for users. (Yes, I admit I use testing in the way you describe - but *I* know what I'm doing.) But is not that big problem to install two kernels? One, the default Lenny kernel and an RT kernel from testing? \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Grammostola Rosea wrote: Andreas Tille wrote: On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote: debian stable aims to production servers, That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like Openoffice.org or audio players or ... IMO multimedia users can/should live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates. I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes. Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for users. (Yes, I admit I use testing in the way you describe - but *I* know what I'm doing.) But is not that big problem to install two kernels? One, the default Lenny kernel and an RT kernel from testing? To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package linux-2.6 thanks in advance, \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Uwe Kleine-König wrote: Hello, I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes. Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for users. (Yes, I admit I use testing in the way you describe - but *I* know what I'm doing.) But is not that big problem to install two kernels? One, the default Lenny kernel and an RT kernel from testing? To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package linux-2.6 Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step? thanks for thinking. Who could provide such a patch package? \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hello, I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes. Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for users. (Yes, I admit I use testing in the way you describe - but *I* know what I'm doing.) But is not that big problem to install two kernels? One, the default Lenny kernel and an RT kernel from testing? To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package linux-2.6 Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions| http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Hello, [your To: header was strange, maybe my mail reaches less recipents than your's] To get some progress here, I'm searching for a person who wants and is capable in filing a wishlist bug (with a patch vs. the package linux-2.6 Maybe providing a patch package is a better first step? thanks for thinking. Who could provide such a patch package? I can. I'd need a sponsor, though. I know two Debian developers, I will ask them. The patch on top of Debian's 2.6.29 is already made[1]---I just merged v2.6.29-rt1 and Debian's tree. Best regards Uwe [1] Available in my git repo at git://git.pengutronix.de/git/ukl/linux-2.6.git debian-rt or browsable at: http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=ukl/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=debian-rt The actual diff is at: http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=ukl/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=debian-rt;hp=debian/v2.6.29 -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions| http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Adrian Knoth wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian? What's good for Debian is good for us :-) but the Debian project may not want to tweak the kernel or the FireWire stack just for the benefit of FFADO users. In the 64 Studio project we have more flexibility to do things like that. Some background info here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/276463 What is true about this? Shouldn't plain Debian also support those Pro audio Firewire devices, the ones the FFADO team are making drivers for? It's easy: http://ieee1394.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Juju_Migration#Module_auto-loading Compile both modules and blacklist the new Juju modules. That's the current upstream recommendation. Even if the default will change around 2.6.30 (or later, I don't know the exact schedule), the FFADO users could still enable the old ieee1394 modules. We already have libraw1394-v2 in sid, but as outlined, FFADO currently only works with the old stack. This might also change in the future, especially if the Google Summer of Code project succeeds. (in-kernel alsa driver module for firewire audio) IOW: ship both stacks, decide for one and blacklist the other. FFADO users will then select the appropriate one. And of course, I'll continue looking into the FFADO-on-Juju issue. I asked an guy who did some work on the RT kernel for Ubuntu. This is what he said: 1) Ubuntu RT kernel don't offer the same guarantees that offer one of the Debian kernels. For example DOS vulnerabilities are accepted into Ubuntu RT Kernel (because it live in universe) when in Debian aren't accepted at all. 2) Kernel packages between Debian and Ubuntu are very different. Different version, different build infrastructure, different approach in accepting external sources. These packages are one of few packages that Ubuntu don't inherit from Debian. 3) Lenny is just released. I suppose that the next Debian release will probably be in two years. In meanwhile it is probably that almost rt bits will be merged and available in vanilla kernel (when it happen the rt kernel could became one of all kernel flavours that Debian offers). In other words a lot of effort is required for satisfy high quality requested by Debian policy. Comments on this? \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
2009/3/28 Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com I asked an guy who did some work on the RT kernel for Ubuntu. This is what he said: 1) Ubuntu RT kernel don't offer the same guarantees that offer one of the Debian kernels. For example DOS vulnerabilities are accepted into Ubuntu RT Kernel (because it live in universe) when in Debian aren't accepted at all. 2) Kernel packages between Debian and Ubuntu are very different. Different version, different build infrastructure, different approach in accepting external sources. These packages are one of few packages that Ubuntu don't inherit from Debian. 3) Lenny is just released. I suppose that the next Debian release will probably be in two years. In meanwhile it is probably that almost rt bits will be merged and available in vanilla kernel (when it happen the rt kernel could became one of all kernel flavours that Debian offers). debian stable aims to production servers, IMO multimedia users can/should live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates. having RT kernel in testing could lead to a significant improvement for multimedia tasks under debian when squeeze will be released (in 18 months I hope). waiting for the RT bits to be merged into the kernel mainline sounds like a slow down.. In other words a lot of effort is required for satisfy high quality requested by Debian policy. Comments on this? \r raffaele
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:15:38PM +0100, Cassiel wrote: debian stable aims to production servers, IMO multimedia users can/should live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates. Just to note a different type of target audience: a PBX such as Asterisk. In this case the stability requirements are actually a bit higher. -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Cassiel wrote: debian stable aims to production servers, That's wrong. Debian stable aims at production systems. If your arguing would be true I wonder why stable contains applications like Openoffice.org or audio players or ... IMO multimedia users can/should live with testing without any fear of system crashes and security updates. I guess there are multimedia users out there who care much about a stable system, reproducible results and have to earn some money from their work - so they do not want to deal with unforseable changes. Please do not advertise testing as a release which is ready for users. (Yes, I admit I use testing in the way you describe - but *I* know what I'm doing.) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, nescivi wrote: Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on Debian (e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am sure their teams may be interested in helping to support it too. IMHO it makes perfectly sense to try to join forces with these Debian based distributions and try to comaintain a -rt kernel package together with these guys to ensure a solit maintenance inside Debian. A lot of linux audio users build their own patched kernels, because they can't get it from the distribution; So why don't these people try to go the right way (tm) and work on an official -rt kernel package? and not all of them enjoy doing it. (I've kept postponing it, but if I don't find one in a distro soon, I'll probably have to... the current Ubuntu rt kernel seems to have some other issues I believe... at least on 64bit...) One reason more to finally solve the problem in the source distribution to make sure that all derivers will profit from it. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Andreas Tille wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, nescivi wrote: Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on Debian (e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am sure their teams may be interested in helping to support it too. IMHO it makes perfectly sense to try to join forces with these Debian based distributions and try to comaintain a -rt kernel package together with these guys to ensure a solit maintenance inside Debian. A lot of linux audio users build their own patched kernels, because they can't get it from the distribution; So why don't these people try to go the right way (tm) and work on an official -rt kernel package? and not all of them enjoy doing it. (I've kept postponing it, but if I don't find one in a distro soon, I'll probably have to... the current Ubuntu rt kernel seems to have some other issues I believe... at least on 64bit...) One reason more to finally solve the problem in the source distribution to make sure that all derivers will profit from it. A little sidestep: Also for a realtime kernel for music production it's important to have the right drivers in it, to support firewire devices for example. I read this on the Debian multimedia mailinglist: We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to change our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to support the old firewire stack though. Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian? What's good for Debian is good for us :-) but the Debian project may not want to tweak the kernel or the FireWire stack just for the benefit of FFADO users. In the 64 Studio project we have more flexibility to do things like that. Some background info here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/276463 What is true about this? Shouldn't plain Debian also support those Pro audio Firewire devices, the ones the FFADO team are making drivers for? Regards, \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com writes: Shouldn't plain Debian also support those Pro audio Firewire devices, the ones the FFADO team are making drivers for? Debian as a whole probably not. However interested contributors are strongly encouraged to help the debian kernel maintainers to integrate that patchset to the kernel package. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:37PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote: Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian? What's good for Debian is good for us :-) but the Debian project may not want to tweak the kernel or the FireWire stack just for the benefit of FFADO users. In the 64 Studio project we have more flexibility to do things like that. Some background info here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/276463 What is true about this? Shouldn't plain Debian also support those Pro audio Firewire devices, the ones the FFADO team are making drivers for? It's easy: http://ieee1394.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Juju_Migration#Module_auto-loading Compile both modules and blacklist the new Juju modules. That's the current upstream recommendation. Even if the default will change around 2.6.30 (or later, I don't know the exact schedule), the FFADO users could still enable the old ieee1394 modules. We already have libraw1394-v2 in sid, but as outlined, FFADO currently only works with the old stack. This might also change in the future, especially if the Google Summer of Code project succeeds. (in-kernel alsa driver module for firewire audio) IOW: ship both stacks, decide for one and blacklist the other. FFADO users will then select the appropriate one. And of course, I'll continue looking into the FFADO-on-Juju issue. HTH -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian (was: Please Improve Debian for Multimedia Production)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Grammostola Rosea rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote: Mmh this is interesting, cause there is an realtime kernel available in the ubuntu hardy repo, but not in Debian yet. Would be nice if there was one which users could install. But I'm not an rt-kernel expert at all, so maybe I should forward this to some other people... But I think it's good to have some discussion about a realtime kernel for Debian on the Debian-dev list... Looking forward to your opinions on this. We have had a Xen Linux image, so there should be no problem to add an -rt kernel variant. I would suggest filing a wishlist bug with patch on the linux-2.6 source package. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Grammostola Rosea wrote: Jim wrote: Grammostola Rosea, I want also to direct your attention to the kernel, as it has the possibility to be more supportive of those specific needs, by having low latency and real-time extensions patched and enabled. The debian folks (especially waldi aka Bastien Blank will say some or all of these are less stable than they could be -- perhaps googling around or asking him when he's not so busy will drum up some details.) Mmh this is interesting, cause there is an realtime kernel available in the ubuntu hardy repo, but not in Debian yet. Would be nice if there was one which users could install. But I'm not an rt-kernel expert at all, so maybe I should forward this to some other people... But I think it's good to have some discussion about a realtime kernel for Debian on the Debian-dev list... Looking forward to your opinions on this. Do you really need real time kernel? Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes, real time is used as marketing thing. Standard Linux kernel is good for most real time uses (but with the right hardware, i.e. common and not obsolete hardware, which could have not so good maintained drivers, so not modified for lower latencies). IIRC music industry helped the developer of normal kernel, to have a good nearly-realtime properties. With latencytop a lot of latencies was discovered and corrected. IMHO, for most users I think guarantee realtime is not really need (but for marketing). Do you have cases where current kernel are not good? Could you describe it, so that we can try to correct them? Anyway current Debian default is CONFIG_HZ_250, an additional CONFIG_HZ_1000 kernel (for desktop user) would be nice, and it would remove most of the concern of our user. Note: this is not realtime, but often people confuse the meaning of realtime, and giving a real realtime kernel could IMO cause more trouble to people. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Do you really need real time kernel? Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes, real time is used as marketing thing. It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is certainly very useful in many industrial applications and Debian is popular in that field. (Don't put a marketing label on anything where you are not yourself sure of your expertise.) I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer serial overrun and I must ensure that the serial interrupt handler is run in the required time and that no other (kernel) task has higher priority. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Do you really need real time kernel? Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes, real time is used as marketing thing. It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is certainly very useful in many industrial applications and Debian is popular in that field. (Don't put a marketing label on anything where you are not yourself sure of your expertise.) Yes, I didn't write very well my sentence: the previous quotes was more about there exist rt kernels, ubuntu has a rt kernel, but not solid requirements. I had to write some seems, and I'm sorry for the two quoted people if it seems an attack. Anyway, later in the mail, I asked for precise needs, so we could see better what we should improve. IMHO most users want a low latency kernel, but not a slower kernel, so a CONFIG_HZ_1000 would be nice. But the original post was about multimedia production (and not reproduction), so the needs are probably other. My point was more: - Debian has not rt kernel. Why? Non DD interested or/and low demand? This is an important point. We must not produce a rt-kernel if we cannot provide testers and developers (in unstable). - kernel management is a weak point in distribution: no good method for kernel dependencies, using full capabilities, ... so IMHO we should try harder with the normal kernel, so that we can use the same infrastructure and testers. If we fail and we are able to support rt kernels, IMO it is good to provide it in Debian. The original mail was about multimedia production and few year ago kernel developers had a lot of interaction with music industries. I'm not an expert in the field, but how far are we in their need with standard kernels?) I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer serial overrun and I must ensure that the serial interrupt handler is run in the required time and that no other (kernel) task has higher priority. These *other customizations* are important to rt-kernel. So we need a person (or more) that know the needs and could support us. realtime alone is only a label ;-) ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer serial overrun and I must ensure that the serial interrupt handler is run in the required time and that no other (kernel) task has higher priority. These *other customizations* are important to rt-kernel. No they are not. It's a supplementary driver only. By -rt kernel, I refer to the patch set maintained by Thomas Gleixner and Ingo Molnar: http://rt.wiki.kernel.org http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/ The patch set is progressively integrated in Linus's tree but there's still some work left and it will likely continue to exist for a long time. FWIW LWN has articles about its (progressive) integration. Of course, if we add a -rt flavor, we should have someone willing to maintain it within the kernel team. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: realtime kernel for Debian
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Do you really need real time kernel? Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two quotes, real time is used as marketing thing. It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is certainly very useful in many industrial applications and Debian is popular in that field. (Don't put a marketing label on anything where you are not yourself sure of your expertise.) Yes, I didn't write very well my sentence: the previous quotes was more about there exist rt kernels, ubuntu has a rt kernel, but not solid requirements. I had to write some seems, and I'm sorry for the two quoted people if it seems an attack. Anyway, later in the mail, I asked for precise needs, so we could see better what we should improve. IMHO most users want a low latency kernel, but not a slower kernel, so a CONFIG_HZ_1000 would be nice. But the original post was about multimedia production (and not reproduction), so the needs are probably other. My point was more: - Debian has not rt kernel. Why? Non DD interested or/and low demand? This is an important point. We must not produce a rt-kernel if we cannot provide testers and developers (in unstable). - kernel management is a weak point in distribution: no good method for kernel dependencies, using full capabilities, ... so IMHO we should try harder with the normal kernel, so that we can use the same infrastructure and testers. If we fail and we are able to support rt kernels, IMO it is good to provide it in Debian. The original mail was about multimedia production and few year ago kernel developers had a lot of interaction with music industries. I'm not an expert in the field, but how far are we in their need with standard kernels?) I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer serial overrun and I must ensure that the serial interrupt handler is run in the required time and that no other (kernel) task has higher priority. These *other customizations* are important to rt-kernel. So we need a person (or more) that know the needs and could support us. realtime alone is only a label ;-) Thanks for the reactions so far! I think the newer kernels are improved for realtime (for audio usage, real low latency etc.). And there was some discussion about better realtime support in default kernels: http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=24t=490 I think 95% of the users of the linuxaudio.org community (LAU mailinglist) uses a realtime kernel (CONFIG_HZ_1000 + Mingo patch (!?)). Discussion if it is still needed bumps up there once in a while, for example: http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/lau/2009/3/10/153190 But till now people reports better results (mostly in terms of latency and xruns for jackd) with a patched kernel. I know two people has started working again on rt patches for the newer kernel: http://lwn.net/Articles/319544/ quote: The realtime preemption project is a longstanding effort to provide deterministic response times in a general-purpose kernel. Much code resulting from this work has been merged into the mainline kernel over the last few years, and a number of vendors are shipping commercial products based upon it. But, for the last year or so, progress toward getting the rest of the realtime work into the mainline has slowed. On February 11, realtime developers Thomas Gleixner and Ingo Molnar resurfaced with the announcement of a new realtime preemption tree and a newly reinvigorated development effort. Merging into the mainline kernel would be the best imho. So people who want to record stuff, realtime with fx, can use the default kernel. It would make a lot of people pretty happy. Kind regards, \r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re: realtime kernel for Debian
I think 95% of the users of the linuxaudio.org community (LAU mailinglist) uses a realtime kernel (CONFIG_HZ_1000 + Mingo patch (!?)). Discussion if it is still needed bumps up there once in a while, for example: http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/lau/2009/3/10/153190 But till now people reports better results (mostly in terms of latency and xruns for jackd) with a patched kernel. I for one would be very interested in an uptodate realtime kernel in Debian. And I'm definately not alone in that wish. Given that there are several audio oriented distributions based on Debian (e.g. 64studio and pure:dyne) that would benefit from this, and I am sure their teams may be interested in helping to support it too. Also any users who started out with 64studio and want to upgrade to a more uptodate system, would be interested in a rt-kernel. From my personal experience the debian kernel 2.6.24 was a bit better for audio stuff, but had a problem with the FTDI serial driver, so I had to go up to the 2.6.26 kernel, which gave me some xruns in jackd unfortunately. A lot of linux audio users build their own patched kernels, because they can't get it from the distribution; and not all of them enjoy doing it. (I've kept postponing it, but if I don't find one in a distro soon, I'll probably have to... the current Ubuntu rt kernel seems to have some other issues I believe... at least on 64bit...) sincerely, Marije -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
