On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 02:37 +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have been wondering (for quite some time) why Debian hasn't ever > given low-latency kernel . I know we do have/give RT kernels. > > The typical use case for real-time kernels is given as recording > studio or live-streaming or gaming server where latency is important. > > From what I could recall several years ago, low-latency kernel was > much better for specific applications at the cost of everything else > though. Indeed, low latency and high throughput are often in conflict and the preemption options allow you to make different trade-offs between the two. There's also a trade-off between low average latency and low worst-case latency; for RT the latter is more important. > Is it because there are not enough people in the Debian-kernel team as > in human resources or there hasn't been a need for it as such ? Adding and maintaining a new flavour with a small config difference takes very little effort. But it will consume more of the project's resources (build time, storage, and so on). More choices can also lead to more confusion among users. I think that most applications are currently served well by one of PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY (Debian default) and PREEMPT_RT. If you have data to show that PREEMPT is much better for some applications than either of the these, then we would consider that. Though the answer might still be no. Ben. > Sorry for the long-winded question/query . -- Ben Hutchings Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part