[64studio-devel] [Fwd: Re: realtime kernel for Debian]
simon.lewis at slnet-online.de
Wed Mar 25 18:59:54 GMT 2009
Maybe I am missing something here but the linux kernel developers are
concentrating on the 2.6.29 rt kernel with the backing of red hat. This
is a logical choice. The 2.6.29 kernel is now officially released, this
kernel is notebook friendly and has the latest drivers. This kernel is
also available in the 3rd alpha version of Studio64 3.0 and works
superbly, as does the rest of the Studio64 3.0. Why would anyone
consider developing an rt kernel for the out of date debian linux?
bernly.onsidering the notebook friend
Grammostola Rosea schrieb:
> Grammostola Rosea wrote:
>> There is an promising discussion on the debian-dev mailinglist. Maybe
>> some people who knows more about realtime kernels could join. Also
>> users who might want to have an realtime kernel in Debian and/or want
>> help testing could join the discussion. I think it would be nice if
>> there is also an realtime kernel in Debian or that the default kernel
>> would be improved for realtime (audio) usage.
> Here is the thread about a realtime kernel in Debian:
> Kind regards,
>> Re: realtime kernel for Debian
>> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate at debian.org>
>> Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:26:35 +0100
>> debian-devel at lists.debian.org
>> debian-devel at lists.debian.org
>> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>>> Do you really need real time kernel?
>>>> Debian is a technical driven project, but reading the previous two
>>>> "real time" is used as marketing thing.
>>> It's good to question the use of any feature, but a real-time kernel is
>>> certainly very useful in many industrial applications and Debian is
>>> popular in that field. (Don't put a marketing label on anything where
>>> you are not yourself sure of your expertise.)
>> Yes, I didn't write very well my sentence: the previous quotes was more
>> about "there exist rt kernels", "ubuntu has a rt kernel", but not solid
>> requirements. I had to write some "seems", and I'm sorry for the two
>> quoted people if it seems an attack.
>> Anyway, later in the mail, I asked for precise needs, so we could see
>> better what we should improve.
>> IMHO most users want a low latency kernel, but not a slower kernel, so
>> a CONFIG_HZ_1000 would be nice. But the original post was about
>> multimedia production (and not reproduction), so the needs are probably
>> My point was more:
>> - Debian has not rt kernel. Why? Non DD interested or/and low demand?
>> This is an important point. We must not produce a rt-kernel if
>> we cannot provide testers and developers (in unstable).
>> - kernel management is a weak point in distribution: no good method
>> for kernel dependencies, using full capabilities, ...
>> so IMHO we should try harder with the normal kernel, so that we
>> can use the same infrastructure and testers. If we fail and we
>> are able to support rt kernels, IMO it is good to provide it in Debian.
>> The original mail was about "multimedia production" and few year ago
>> developers had a lot of interaction with music industries.
>> I'm not an expert in the field, but how far are we in their need with
>> standard kernels?)
>>> I do use a real-time kernel on a Debian based system for one of my
>>> customers (but I have to recompile the kernel anyway because I do other
>>> customizations) and I have good reasons to do so because I can't suffer
>>> serial overrun and I must ensure that the serial interrupt handler
>>> is run in the required time and that no other (kernel) task has higher
>> These *other customizations* are important to rt-kernel. So we need
>> a person (or more) that know the needs and could support us.
>> "realtime" alone is only a label ;-)
> 64studio-devel mailing list
> 64studio-devel at lists.64studio.com
More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-devel