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

Paul Davis
2005-01-07T22:38:24Z

>So to make forward progress I'd like the audio people to confirm whether
>the mlock bits in 2.6.9+ do help that half of their requirement first

it does, although it would be nicer to not have two separate
components to administering the usability of realtime applications.

>(and if not find a way to fix it) and then tackle the scheduling part.
>For that one I really wonder whether the combination of the now actually
>working nicelevels (see Mingo's post) and a simple wrapper for the really
>high requirements cases doesn't work.

Jack already posted results: the nice levels are massively inferior as
they currently stand.

The wrapper is incredibly inconvenient for applications: when you use
JACK, start clients would require a different command depending on
whether JACK is using RT mode or not. That is extremely inelegant, and
its why we've developed these solutions (caps+jackstart for 2.4,
"realtime" LSM for 2.6).

--p