Roger Larsson:
> > > > So how is the low-latency situation for 2.6? I did install 2.6 on
> > > > my private machine, but was not able to get better performance
> > > > than 2.4 with ll+pre (kicked out of jack-graph pretty soon with 128
> > > > frames period). Is there a trick to get better lowlate
On Thursday 27 November 2003 13.42, Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > So how is the low-latency situation for 2.6? I did install 2.6 on
> > > my private machine, but was not able to get better performance
> > > than 2.4 with ll+pre
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
> [...]
> > So how is the low-latency situation for 2.6? I did install 2.6 on
> > my private machine, but was not able to get better performance
> > than 2.4 with ll+pre (kicked out of jack-graph pretty soon with 128
> > frames period). Is there a tric
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I still like a module idea though. I dont see the point of
> > patching the kernel with the security module interface, except for the
> > security. What I would like, though, is:
>
> This idea
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I still like a module idea though. I dont see the point of
> patching the kernel with the security module interface, except for the
> security. What I would like, though, is:
This idea makes sense. If there is a requirement for clean, on-
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> So, my feeling is that the best approach is...
>
> (1) LSM for 2.6.
>
> This is something we might ask multimedia distributions to
> distribute, enabling an optional turn-key solution for realtime
> audio.
>
> (2) An interface-compatible variant
> The Linux Security Module (LSM) interface is a standard part of 2.6.
> There actually is a backport of the security modules patch to 2.4 on
> the NSA site for SELinux. But, it is quite large and I doubt many
> people would want to apply it for running realtime audio.
It depends on whether it in
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I did this as a baseline before adding the `realtimegroup' logic we
> >discussed last week. I think I'll attempt that next, after fixing
> >the SCHED_RR omission.
>
> I thought about hacking together those additions after it was posted,
On Tue, 24 Nov 2003, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>
> Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I couldn't wait til you found it, so I wrote one from scratch instead. :)
> > > The url below point to a hackish patch againt 2.4.23-rc1, and yes, it is
> > > very simple. Works by setting /
Kjetil Svalastog Matheussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I couldn't wait til you found it, so I wrote one from scratch instead. :)
> > The url below point to a hackish patch againt 2.4.23-rc1, and yes, it is
> > very simple. Works by setting /proc/sys/kernel/setschedandmlock to 1.
> > http://ww
Paul Davis:
> >Since mainstream capabilities support seems always to be somewhere
> >over the horizon, I am interested in the patch Paul and Steve
> >mentioned. IIUC, it defines a control file in /proc which, if
> >enabled, allows any process access to scheduling and memory locking
> >privileges.
11 matches
Mail list logo
