Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

2005-03-08 Thread Paul Davis
>And as I mentioned a few times, the authors have neither the inclination >nor the ability to do that, because they are not kernel hackers. The >realtime LSM was written by users (not developers) of the kernel, to >solve a specific real world problem. No one ever claimed it was the >correct solut

Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

2005-02-11 Thread Paul Davis
>RT-LSM introduces architectural problems in the form of bogus API. And that may be true of LSM, but not RT-LSM in particular. RT-LSM doesn't introduce *any* API whatsoever - it simply allows software to call various existing APIs (mostly from POSIX) and have them not fail as result of not being r

Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

2005-02-11 Thread Paul Davis
>introduced. See devfs. And I think the adoption barrier thing is a red >herring as well: the current users are by and large compiling their >own RT-tuned kernels. not true. most people are using kernels built for specialized distros or addons, such as CCRMA, Demudi, Ubuntu, or dyne:bolic. --p -

Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

2005-02-10 Thread Paul Davis
[ the best solution is ] [ my preferred solution is ... ] [ it would be better if ... ] [ this is a kludge and it should be done instead like ... ] did nobody read what andrew wrote and what JOQ pointed out? after weeks of debating this, no other conceptual solution emerged that d

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

2005-02-03 Thread Paul Davis
>that might be all well and good, but i believe you still dont understand >my point: for yield_to() to work the target task _needs to be running_. correct, i did not understand. perhaps Con didn't either. my idea was related to: >in theory it would be possible to add two new syscalls: sys_suspen

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

2005-02-03 Thread Paul Davis
>(it would be cleaner to use POSIX semaphores for this, but you mentioned >the requirement for the mechanism to work on 2.4 kernels too - pthread >spinlocks will work inter-process on 2.4 too, and will schedule nicely.) can't work. pthread interprocess spinlocks are hopelessly non-RT safe in 2.4/l

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

2005-02-03 Thread Paul Davis
>> yield_to(tid) should not be too hard to implement. Ingo? What do you >> think? > >i dont really like it - it's really the wrong interface to use. Futexes >are a much better locking/signalling interface. yield_to() would not be i agree in principle, and i was suprised to see Con express this tho

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

2005-02-03 Thread Paul Davis
>This is a bit off topic, but I'm interested in applications that are >more driven by time and has abstraction closer to that in a pure way. >A lot of audio kits tend to be overly about DSP and not about time. >This is difficult to explain, but what I'm referring to here is ideally >the next genera

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

2005-02-02 Thread Paul Davis
>As Ingo said in an earlier a post, with a little ingenuity this problem >can be solved in user space. The programs in question can be setuid >root so that they can set RT scheduling policy BUT have their >permissions set so that they only executable by owner and group with the >group set to a

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

2005-02-02 Thread Paul Davis
>It's clever that they do that, but additional control is needed in the >future. jackd isn't the most sophisticate media app on this planet (not >too much of an insult :)) and the demands from this group is bound to Actually, JACK probably is the most sophisticated media *framework* on the planet,

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

2005-01-23 Thread Paul Davis
>Yup, modern must be the key. Even Ingo can't help my little ole PIII/500 >with YMF-740C. Dang thing can't handle -p64 (alsa rejects that, causing >jackd to become terminally upset), and it can't even handle 4 clients at >SCHED_FIFO despite latest/greatest RT preempt kernel without xruns. > >B

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

2005-01-22 Thread Paul Davis
>The idea is to get equivalent performance to SCHED_FIFO. The results >show that much, and it is 100 times better than unprivileged >SCHED_NORMAL. The fact that this is an unoptimised normal desktop >environment means that the conclusion we _can_ draw is that SCHED_ISO is >as good as SCHED_FIFO

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

2005-01-22 Thread Paul Davis
>> "Jack" == Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Jack> Looks like we need to do another study to determine which >Jack> filesystem works best for multi-track audio recording and >Jack> playback. XFS looks promising, but only if they get the latency >Jack> right. Any experience with t

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

2005-01-20 Thread Paul Davis
>That's discouraging about reiserfs. Is it version 3 or 4? Earlier >versions showed good realtime responsiveness for audio testers. It >had a reputation for working much better at lower latency than ext3. over on #ardour last week, we saw appalling performance from reiserfs. a 120GB filesystem