yodaiken@fsmlabs.com writes:
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 02:05:50PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > IIRC, you don't like RTLinux because you don't like the programming
> > model. And if you search back a couple of years, you'll see I've
> > complained about the RTLinux API as well. Not that it's ugly, just
> > that it's different.
>
> BTW: In response to Richard's complaints, as well as to problems
> with the API when we went to SMP, and to the discovery of POSIX
> 1001.13 we have switched over to a Pthreads based API -- and gdb
> even works. It's not that different. I'm still trying to figure out
> a good solution to Richard's request for user space. I'm not happy
> with anything I come up with or hear about, but maybe someone will
> figure it out.
Even with these changes, you still can't call code inside (say) a DSP
library while keeping RT priority. Which matters to some problem
classes.
Victor: what about a patch that provides the kind of feature I'm
suggesting, but either costs very little to your kernel-space RT
threads (just a single test in the RTLinux scheduler) or can be
configured out entirely? This way, you can squeeze out the last bit of
performance, or can opt to pay a small performance penalty for
increased features. Everyone is happy, because there is choice.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST