Re: PREEMPT_RT support

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 10-12-06 8:00 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 10-12-06 6:06 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> I'm looking at how to best support PREEMPT_RT. We have a few things in
>> the works which prevent the ideal scenario (which is just a new recipe
>> using the preempt_rt branch in linux-yocto).
>>
>> 2.6.34 never had an -rt patch. The WR folks created one that builds and
>> is undergoing review from tglx - but that doesn't appear to be near the
>> top of his stack. 2.6.37 is still pending an -rt patch, also blocked on
>> -tglx.
>
> We'll be doing one at WR eventually, so it will exist in
> one form or another for version>  2.6.34.
>
>>
>> I'm thinking of creating a meta-rt layer which would provide a latest
>> -rt kernel and the rt-tests suite along with a non-graphical image
>> definition that facilitates latency detection and rt performance
>> measurement. poky-image-rt-test or something along those lines.
>>
>> Any objection to this approach? As we will eventually move these recipes
>> into the core poky recipes, I'd suggest we put this in an
>> "experimental/meta_rt" git repository.
>
> I'm worrying about this muddying the water with respect to the
> -rt branches in the linux-yocto repositories. In particular if
> we go *backward* from the 2.6.34 variant that we already have
> (remember, that -rt kernel has been heavily abused for 9
> months now and is just as stable (probably more so for
> non-x86) as anything else you'll find).
>
> Why can't we continue to consolidate these into fewer kernels
> and recipes ? We can't share fixes and BSPs easily if everything
> is kept separate. We can obviously pair the tests/utilities along
> with the linux-yocto -rt branches, so I'd prefer that approach
> and continue to work on improving the base that we already
> have.

I re-read this and my message really isn't clear. I like the
approach. As we agreed before, that we need a separate recipe
that highlights the -rt and builds from a known base. The tests
and surrounding infrastructure are great, and we can have
multiple sources for -rt goodness. I'm just suggesting that
we use the 2.6.34 variant at least on a level playing field
with the 2.6.33-rt, since our 2.6.34 can support all the official
BSPs and features that have merged into the 0.9 kernel.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky