Re: [LAU] rt-patch vs cgroups approach

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 - 9:13 pm

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--ogcV4HN47PPCCtUsLmhS1QWHpfRpOGqU6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 02/03/2014 09:38 PM, F Tux wrote:

Workstation#Instructions_for_3.x_Kernels

Hello,

The information in the proaudio wiki seems wrong to me. cgroups do not
yield the same result as using the RT patchset as the RT patchset
targets a completely different goal. Also cgroups add an unnecessary
layer of complexity. I've never had to use them (from what I've
understood cgroups are disabled by default on Ubuntu and maybe also
Debian) and that's also one of the reasons there's nothing about them in
the linuxaudio.org wiki (of which I'm the main author). What I think
that still works best is to use a RT kernel or low-latency (PREEMPT__LL)
kernel, use rtirq and raise JACK's priority to a reasonable number. And
not the default prio of 10 that figures in the proaudio wiki, another
reason that makes me doubt if the author understands how setting rtprio
works. But I'm open to a discussion about this as I don't have any
hands-on experience with cgroups so I could be completely mistaken :)

Best,

Jeremy

--ogcV4HN47PPCCtUsLmhS1QWHpfRpOGqU6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=0sBQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ogcV4HN47PPCCtUsLmhS1QWHpfRpOGqU6--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] rt-patch vs cgroups approach, F Tux, (Mon Feb 3, 8:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] rt-patch vs cgroups approach, Paul Davis, (Mon Feb 3, 10:16 pm)
Re: [LAU] rt-patch vs cgroups approach, Jeremy Jongepier, (Mon Feb 3, 9:13 pm)