Re: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 2.6 Real Time Kernel

From: Lee Revell
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 14:49:05 EST


On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 17:38, stefan.eletzhofer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:30:27PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 17:26, stefan.eletzhofer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 02:30:28PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 13:41, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> > > > > Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> > > > > > - Voluntary Preemption by Ingo Molnar
> > > > > > - IRQ thread patches by Scott Wood and Ingo Molnar
> > > > > > - BKL mutex patch by Ingo Molnar (with MV extensions)
> > > > > > - PMutex from Germany's Universitaet der Bundeswehr, Munich
> > > > > > - MontaVista mutex abstraction layer replacing spinlocks with mutexes
> > > > >
> > > > > To the best of my understanding, this still doesn't provide deterministic
> > > > > hard-real-time performance in Linux.
> > > >
> > > > Using only the VP+IRQ thread patch, I ran my RT app for 11 million
> > > > cycles yesterday, with a maximum delay of 190 usecs. How would this not
> > > > satisfy a 200 usec hard RT constraint?
> > >
> > > I think the keyword here is "deterministic", isn't it?
> >
> > Well, depends what you mean by deterministic. Some RT apps only require
> > an upper bound on response time. This is a form of determinism.
>
> Yes. But can you give that upper bound "a priori", that is w/o doing
> measurements with your application?
>

Yes. The upper bound on the response time of an RT task is a function
of the longest non-preemptible code path in the kernel. Currently this
is the processing of a single packet by netif_receive_skb.

AIUI hard realtime is about bounded response times. How does this not
qualify?

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/