Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

According to this link [1], preempt kernel is slower than generic. Why are we building the kernel as preempt? Do we really need low latency?

[1] http://askubuntu.com/questions/12666...-realtime-ones

Re: Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

It's usually recommended for desktop systems (and mobile fits the definition), as low latency is considered more important than high troughput (on a server you'd have it the other way).

Re: Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

In the (software) company I worked a while ago, we used the word "endpoint" to cover desktops and mobile devices. As opposed to "servers".

Re: Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

To me a server is also an endpoint :)

Where I work, most of the time, they're all a "general-purpose computer", unless they do something really special :)

Re: Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

Yep, but the Ubuntu wiki says one should use the generic kernel unless there are reasons to do otherwise.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Ub...RealTimeKernel

Re: Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

From that page:

"If you need a low latency system (e.g. for recording audio) then please use the -preempt kernel as a first choice." [Emphasis mine]

There you go. My N900 records videos with stuttering as it is, even with a PREEMPT, Thumb2 kernel. It sounds like a generic one would make it even worse.

Re: Why is kernel-power PREEMPT?
 

Yes, indeed, this makes sense :)

Maybe a lowlatency kernel could alleviate the issues with recording?