> Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ...
>
> >
> > Right, that was my question. George says, in your words, "for better
>
> > standards compliancy ..." and I want to know why you guys think
> that.
>
> The thought was that if someone need RT tasks he probably need a very
> low
> latency and so the idea that by applying global preemption decisions
> would
> lead to a better compliancy. But i'll be happy to ear that this is
> false
> anyway ...
>
without wanting to start a RT flame-fest, what do people really want
when they talk about RT in this [Linux] context:
- very low latency
- deterministic latency ("never to exceed")
- both
- something completely different
Thanks
Martin
-- +-----------------------------------------------------+ |Martin Knoblauch | |-----------------------------------------------------| |http://www.knobisoft.de/cats | |-----------------------------------------------------| |e-mail: knobi@knobisoft.de | +-----------------------------------------------------+ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 31 2001 - 21:00:16 EST