On Mon Jun 22 2009 - 10:33:37 EEST, Arnold Krille wrote:
[...]
-Arnold, still trying to understand why any distribution should now use
RealtimeKit after not really using rtlimits in PAM (except for the new
run for Kits)
I for one consider this kit naming pretty awkward, and if it's just
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Where's the unix in everyone of us? ConsoleKit for example, rpm -q
summarizes it as System daemon for tracking users, sessions and seats
The 'seats' is pure managerese. The term was probably invented by
some MBA considering that
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Fons Adriaensenf...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Where's the unix in everyone of us? ConsoleKit for example, rpm -q
summarizes it as System daemon for tracking users, sessions and seats
The 'seats' is
On 06/26/2009 12:32 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:25 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 17:25 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10361
(referenced inside the
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
IMO I would probably not have lasted as long as he did in this thread.
Too many type and fire responses - as you mention below - with little
thought or research (I'm guilty as well, of course).
For what
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:33 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 06/24/2009 10:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Paul Davisp...@linuxaudiosystems.com wrote:
here's my halfway (?) summary:
distros refuse to even provide a way to enable RLIMIT_RTPRIO because
it enables regular users to lockup the machine.
Up next: 8 other ways for regular users to easily lockup
Lennart Poettering wrote:
Finally, I believe your insisting on POSIX is a lost cause anyway,
because it is a fictitious OS interface. It's a good guideline, but
First of all, POSIX is also IEEE and ISO/IEC standard for an operating
system (including command line utilities), thus it has some
Dennis Schulmeister schrieb:
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:08 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
enabling
RT by default for all desktop users? (I may
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49:40AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Just downgrade to FC5 or so. Or pick a different distro that is
suited more to your needs.
Actually F8 would be enough. ConsoleKit was a service there and I
just disabled it without any ill effect.
In F10 that choice has been
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
solution for hardcore rt users?
rtkit is not for you!
Let me repeat this:
RTKIT IS NOT FOR YOU!
this is
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:13 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
If you don't do RT development or doing RT development only for
embedded cases, or if you are a [/*intended explicitives deleted*/]
then it doesn't mean anything for you.
However, if you are a desktop developer interested to get
On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davisp...@linuxaudiosystems.com wrote:
Finally, as Chris said -
many of us are writing apps that target multiple platforms
Well, my comment (from the point of view of applications rather than
library
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 00:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
Since you claim that all the *Kit stuff is optional,
(as a side note, I didn't claim that)
and you will still allow us to run our systems as we
see fit,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Patrick
Shirkeypshir...@boosthardware.com wrote:
On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davisp...@linuxaudiosystems.com
wrote:
Finally, as Chris said -
many of us are writing apps that target multiple platforms
On 06/23/2009 06:02 PM, alex stone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Patrick
Shirkeypshir...@boosthardware.com wrote:
On 06/22/2009 04:20 PM, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Paul Davisp...@linuxaudiosystems.com
wrote:
Finally, as Chris said -
many of us are
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
As a point of interest and comparison that has very little to do with
this debate, I just noticed that pulseaudio *is* being used in the Palm Pre
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
While Jack and Portaudio are not.
Yes, also, Palm Pre doesn't ship with
Well, I think this is fundamentally a good idea.
I just thought someone ought to say that.
I quite understand the frustration Paul expresses about the existing
methods of doing this never having being fully exploited, but I can
see why this has happened. It's still simple enough to put your
Dennis Schulmeister linux-audio-...@windows3.de writes:
If you do a regular phone call from one mobile phone to another you
easily get 1 second latency. The point is you don't notice it unless
you're standing next to the other person.
Well, 1 second is totally unacceptable on VoIP;). I don't
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
It's great that all these new Kits are putting free software in the
hands of average users. What isn't great is that they seem to be
hastily developed and without concern for the wider free software
community. There will be
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Gene Heskettgene.hesk...@verizon.net wrote:
PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
This type of response is incredibly unhelpful. Lennart and others
involved with PA have made their goals clear, their design assumptions
clear, their
Le 23 juin 09 à 17:04, Paul Davis a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Gene Heskettgene.hesk...@verizon.net
wrote:
PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
This type of response is incredibly unhelpful. Lennart and others
involved with PA have made their
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
+10,000
PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
I don't think PA is a bad thing. On my laptop, PA works as follows:
1) takes care of general desktop stuff as needed
2) when JACKD connects directly to ALSA, PA ceases to
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:46 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
What I see is that Lennart and the others who have worked on
pulseaudio have done such a good job at making the platform accessible
to the desktop community that it has now become the defacto standard
for
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:46 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
... we do have a problem now that needs to be sorted with
integrating pa and jack in a way that is easy for everyone to work with.
Do they need integrated at all ?
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 12:26:01 Dave Phillips wrote:
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:46 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
... we do have a problem now that needs to be sorted with
integrating pa and jack in a way that is easy for everyone to work
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 10:44 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier
(netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de) wrote:
What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
solution for hardcore rt users?
rtkit
2009/6/23 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano na...@ccrma.stanford.edu:
[ ... good attempt at a summary elided ... ]
fernando, unfortunately, you still missed the mechanisms described here:
http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~rosentha/linux/2.6.26.5/docs/scheduler/sched-rt-group.txt
which are intended to
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvici...@vt.edu wrote:
PA is one of the biggest screwups ever, but red hat can't see it.
I don't think PA is a bad thing.
PulseAudio works well for me, and I can't believe I'm the only one. I
have far more confidence in being able to get sound
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 13:12 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
2009/6/23 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano na...@ccrma.stanford.edu:
[ ... good attempt at a summary elided ... ]
fernando, unfortunately, you still missed the mechanisms described here:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
This is what Lennart wrote in his original announcement:
Why not use cgroups for this? Because it's simply a horrible API, and
using this for media applications has non-obvious consequences on
using
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:19 +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
As a point of interest and comparison that has very little to do with
this debate, I just noticed that pulseaudio *is* being used in the Palm Pre
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
While Jack and
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
This is what Lennart wrote in his original announcement:
Why not use cgroups for this? Because it's simply a horrible API, and
using this for
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
This is what Lennart wrote in his original announcement:
Why
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Fons Adriaensenf...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:59:19AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
It's great that all these new Kits
There certainly do seem to be a lot of new Kits on the block.
are putting free software in the
hands of average users.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:56:08PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
Auditor: OK, show me a list of all processes on this system.
System engineer: ps -ef
ps -ef? Well, there's your problem right there. Shoulda been using BSD...
First projects we did were actually on Solaris and Sun boxen..
[something appears to be wrong on the list, I'm not seeing your posts
there, I'm just getting the emails directly addressed to me]
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:27 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
see here for an interesting entry:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
that is hilarious :)
and
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10361
(referenced inside the previous ticket)
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
see here for an interesting entry:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
that is hilarious :)
and
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
see here for an interesting entry:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
that is hilarious :)
Hmmm, well, not really. It means he
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 20:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
The question is relevant, I think, as the kernels that I use (Planet
CCRMA) are the rt patched kernels, currently limited to 2.6.29.5 (I
On 06/24/2009 10:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
see here for an interesting entry:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442959
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:33 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 06/24/2009 10:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
see here for
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 20:25 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 20:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
The question is relevant, I think, as the kernels that I use (Planet
Lennart Poettering mz...@0pointer.de writes:
I am Linux developer. My priority is Linux.
That's nice, but most of us developers don't have the luxury of being
able to forget about portability. I've spent quite a bit of effort
packaging software for other free operating systems, and there's
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 00:15 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
this offers an API of
two tiny functions.
And rtkit is just a tiny piece of software that only requires minimal
additions to client code to be useful.
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09
On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 02:09:36 Lennart Poettering wrote:
Doing authorization via groups is broken,
What??? Did you ever do administration for more then one computer???
Authorization by groups is _the only_ way to go if
On Mon, 22.06.09 08:52, Adam Sampson (a...@offog.org) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mz...@0pointer.de writes:
I am Linux developer. My priority is Linux.
That's nice, but most of us developers don't have the luxury of being
able to forget about portability. I've spent quite a bit of effort
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
There's something wrong here.
There is a lot wrong here.
* Question: is the 'demoting' of RT-threads applied only to RT
threads granted by this daeomon, or does it apply to all, including
those created by processes running as root ? In
On Sun, 21.06.09 20:58, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
The question is relevant, I think, as the kernels that I use (Planet
CCRMA) are the rt patched kernels, currently limited to 2.6.29.5 (I
think Thomas and the rt gang are working on 2.6.30, I imagine 2.6.31
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
Also, the client reference implementation is tiny. it just wraps two
method calls. Trivial stuff.
You're referring here to the code at
http://git.0pointer.de/?p=rtkit.git;a=blob;f=rtkit.c ? That's not
trivial. I
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Fons Adriaensenf...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
* Why should an app running on an headless system at RL3 be forced
to go through a collection of desktop-oriented daemons in order to
do something that amounts to a simple POSIX system call ?
I do think this is a
On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
There's something wrong here.
There is a lot wrong here.
* Question: is the 'demoting' of RT-threads applied only to RT
threads granted by this daeomon, or
On Sun, 21.06.09 21:02, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
The distinction between a thread/clone() and a process/fork() bomb
doesn't really matter. What matters is that you can kill() processes
and
Lennart Poettering mz...@0pointer.de writes:
Really, I see not much value in supporting more than one kernel.
I find this statement surprising, having found that testing on multiple
operating systems is an excellent way of finding subtle bugs in code.
(I assume you're just talking about
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
FUD, FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. FUD. And FUD.
Sounds like our prime minister: Communists ! Communists !
Communists !. His standard answer to all critics. Even
the Financial Times is communist.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre:
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:53, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
What exactly are you asking for as user-space infrastructure? Some
easy to reach UI that will allow you to make yourself a member of some
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
privileges to every process on the machine. However, it makes it
possible to prevent
Since it is rogue processes - from the interweb? - rather than rough
users that are the potential problem, wouldn't the cure then be to grant
certain trusted applications RT-privileges?
A novice user would install well-known binaries from the distros
repository. The binary runs as user 'rt-audio'
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 17:58 +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
The existence of rtkit doesn't make it harder for you to assign RT
privileges to every
On Mon, 22.06.09 19:59, Jens M Andreasen (jens.andrea...@comhem.se) wrote:
Since it is rogue processes - from the interweb? - rather than rough
users that are the potential problem, wouldn't the cure then be to grant
certain trusted applications RT-privileges?
A novice user would install
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:15, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:18 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
But uh, that app could then not access the starting user's file in any
way.
Of course it could! ... :-/
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:24 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 11:15, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 15:05, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 05:58:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're not ignoring it, you're practically waging the war against it,
Ever seen a real war ?
Your point being?
My point being that if you use that word you'd better know
what it means.
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 16:42, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
As a user doing critical audio, say, in a concert situation, I'd require
that my computer's realtime audio tasks can use 99.9% of the cpu for
short amounts of time. I don't care if the
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
You practically cannot take group membership away from a user after
you gave it to him, and also adding a seperate group for every tiny
bit you need to authorize access to doesn't scale.
security
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:19, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
so what is this about? rt users want absolute control over their
machine. anybody who can tolerate some arbitrary bits of policy thrown
at them during work is by definition not an rt user.
rt users must be
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:35, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 09:33, Arnold Krille (arn...@arnoldarts.de) wrote:
You practically cannot take group membership away from a user after
you gave it to him, and also adding a
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:19, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
so what is this about? rt users want absolute control over their
machine. anybody who can tolerate some arbitrary bits of policy thrown
at them during work is by definition not an
On Mon, 22.06.09 23:46, Jörn Nettingsmeier (netti...@folkwang-hochschule.de)
wrote:
What is so difficult to understand that rtkit is not intended to be a
solution for hardcore rt users?
rtkit is not for you!
Let me repeat this:
RTKIT IS NOT FOR YOU!
this is getting
On Mon, 22.06.09 18:00, drew Roberts (z...@100jamz.com) wrote:
Here is a small bit of an attempt at being constructive.
I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
enabling
RT by default for all desktop users? (I may have missed it or forgotten it
though) What
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 17:37:20 Lennart Poettering wrote:
The amount of constructive criticism in this thread is next
to zero, nobody even bothers to read the README before just fudding
around.
I am one of those who also haven't
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:37:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
It was clearly a bad idea to post about rtkit on lad. It is a big
waste of time fighting this through against all those desktop-haters,
fdo-haters, dbus-haters, who apparently believe I am out to take away
their freedom to
On Tue, 23.06.09 00:36, Fons Adriaensen (f...@kokkinizita.net) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:37:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
It was clearly a bad idea to post about rtkit on lad. It is a big
waste of time fighting this through against all those desktop-haters,
fdo-haters,
On Monday 22 June 2009 23:35:57 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
some daemon fiddling with rt privs at
runtime in my book qualifies as drowning the child first, then throwing
it out. maybe eating it afterwards, but i'm not sure.
Yippie! We are back at the child eating stage!
/me gets out the
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:18 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 22:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.06.09 12:51, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu)
wrote:
Good question.
Why is it resetting all the default, even processes
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 15:08 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 18:00 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
I don't think I saw any assertion in the thread as to the benefits of
enabling
RT by default for all desktop users? (I may have missed it or forgotten it
though)
Lennart Poettering wrote:
What I am saying is that the current system is too binary: Either
you have RT sched and then for *everything*. Or you haven't, and then
you haven't got it for *anything*.
But isn't this more to do with the missing userspace support infrastructure
that numerous people
On Mon, 22.06.09 16:33, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
If rtkit would demote all processes when triggered, regardless of whether
rtkit granted the privileges or not then I can't really bypass it, it is
always there defining policy.
Except that rtkit wouldn't be
On Tue, 23.06.09 01:38, Dennis Schulmeister (linux-audio-...@windows3.de) wrote:
So after reading all those messages I'm somewhat left up wondering if
the addressed problem (real-time audio for desktop applications) really
is an existing problem. The same goes for the theoretical threat of a
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 20:22 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
You are misunderstanding what I was saying: either a process is
SCHED_RR/FIFO or it is not. That's a binary thing. Either you get the
full RT powers, or no RT
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 03:54 +0200, Esben Stien wrote:
Dennis Schulmeister linux-audio-...@windows3.de writes:
audio performance has always been fine for typical desktop usage
without rt privileges me thinks. Because the issue of latency is
relative in that case. But maybe I'm missing an
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
Heya,
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and since it is now a dependency of
PulseAudio and things work how they work
On Sat, 20.06.09 03:42, Lee Revell (rlrev...@joe-job.com) wrote:
Uh. I thought about that. Not sure if we really should do that
though. In many cases, the app's IO callback might not really be that
well suited for execution in RT. And then it might end up being killed
by RLIMIT_RTTIME or
On Sun, 21.06.09 11:09, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and since it is now a dependency of
PulseAudio and things work how they work this will
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 11:09, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and since it
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:13 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and since it is now a dependency of
PulseAudio and things work how they work this will then
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
If I understand correctly then the mechanism would not be useful for
jack (leaving aside the issue of SCHED_RR vs. SCHED_FIFO), as jack
actually gives rt priority to threads in other processes (the clients
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:13 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and since it is now a dependency of
PulseAudio and things work how they work this will then
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 00:15 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 11:09, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
I cannot imagine wanting to use this mechanism. You also seem to
have assumed that everyone agrees that SCHED_RR is the correct
policy, rather than SCHED_FIFO.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 19:14 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Fernando
Lopez-Lezcanona...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:
If I understand correctly then the mechanism would not be useful for
jack (leaving aside the issue of SCHED_RR vs. SCHED_FIFO), as jack
actually
On Sun, 21.06.09 19:02, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
So what does this do? It's a simple policy daemon that hands out
SCHED_RR scheduling to normal user processes/threads that ask for it.
This appears to be a baroque mechanism designed to solve a problem
suspectible
On Sun, 21.06.09 16:06, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:13 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and
On Sun, 21.06.09 19:14, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
of course, the name of lennart's new feature doesn't make it entirely
clear whether or not fork is equivalent to its real linux
implementation: clone. if it were not, then you could create an RT
thread bomb instead of a
On Sun, 21.06.09 16:40, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:13 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
Just a quick announcement:
I just moved into Fedora Rawhide a little daemon called RealtimeKit
which will be enabled by default, and
On Sun, 21.06.09 16:42, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 00:15 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 21.06.09 11:09, Paul Davis (p...@linuxaudiosystems.com) wrote:
I cannot imagine wanting to use this mechanism. You also seem to
have
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
The distinction between a thread/clone() and a process/fork() bomb
doesn't really matter. What matters is that you can kill() processes
and make the whole issue go away in one step even if that process has
one
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Lennart Poetteringmz...@0pointer.de wrote:
so, sched_setschedparam(), a documented, implemented and demonstrably
functional call fails in some cases. and your proposal is to replace
this well-established API with a new API that doesn't actually
accomplish
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
