Re: [LAU] Ubuntu: changing realtime priority of irqs

On Saturday 21 July 2007, Atte André Jensen wrote:

> > Which kernel version is this?
>
> Homemade (with mingo rt-patch) 2.6.18-rt7
>
> 2.6.20-16-lowlatency

The lowlatency kernel of ubuntu is not a realtime kernel. And for your home
made kernel, please let us see your .config

e.g.

~$ grep PREEMPT /boot/config-$(uname -r)
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_HARDIRQS=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
# CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is not set
# CONFIG_CRITICAL_PREEMPT_TIMING is not set

I underlined the relevant line there

>
> > On Debian, I get ksoftirqd as well, one
> > per processor core. ksoftirqd is part of the 2.6 kernel series. I
> > imagine you're still using a 2.4 kernel on your Debian system,
>
> Nope...
>
> > or the
> > kernel is configured and built differently to mine.
>
> Might be...
>
> > It may be possible to rebuild the Ubuntu kernel you are using to match
> > what you are used to, but I don't know if that will get you what you
> > want.
>
> I grabbed a vanilla 2.6.22.1 and applied the latest patch and quick
> testing seems to suggest that the system is running at least at well as
> under debian:
>
> atte@email-addr-hidden:~$ uname -r
> 2.6.22.1-rt4
>
> atte@email-addr-hidden:~$ ps aux | grep IRQ
> root 36 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:15 0:00 [IRQ-9]
> root 268 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00 [IRQ-4]
> root 292 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00
> [IRQ-12]
> root 293 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00 [IRQ-1]
> root 1108 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00
> [IRQ-14]
> root 1139 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00
> [IRQ-15]
> root 1140 0.2 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:02
> [IRQ-11]
> root 1936 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00 [IRQ-8]
> root 2025 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00 [IRQ-7]
> root 2103 0.3 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:03
> [IRQ-10]
> root 3432 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S< 18:16 0:00 [IRQ-3]
> atte 4674 0.0 0.0 2888 772 pts/2 R+ 18:33 0:00 grep
> IRQ
>
> > I've never tried setting real-time priority on kernel threads
> > like that, and I don't know if it would achieve anything. I trust it
> > did for you?
>
> Alot!
>
> Bottom line: It seems it's still necessary to roll your own kernel to
> get optimal realtime performance under ubuntu :-(

-- 
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user