real-time support in Linux (again)
Chuck Lever (cel@monkey.org)
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:59:39 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
> With due respect there is a difference between the technical argument
> about the right way to do real time, and to clean up or improve the
> scheduler (which is undoubtedly possible since Ingo did for 2.2.0)
> and continually posting a broken patch because you cannot grasp the
> concept of where the standards API/user app interface point is in Linux.
>
> There are two very real camps about the real time type stuff in Linux
>
> 1 is the "its either real time or its not". Thats things like rtlinux. If you
> say 71uS you get 71uS even if netscape is loading. And for the code modules
> that are critical to latency you pay in flexibility and API tools.
>
> 2 is the "most is good enough" argument. Thats not generally coming from the
> 'if we miss the building blows up' department of real time computing but from
> the 'I dont want my MP3 files to jump' school - where perfection isnt the aim.
>
> I'm quite interested to see what can be done in #2 without getting to the point
> it complicates the kernel. But if you are controlling nuclear power stations
> stick to rtlinux because its much much safer.
what's the difference between using rtlinux for real-time and linux for
time-sharing, and Sun's approach with Solaris where the scheduler
algorithms are contained in something akin to loadable kernel modules?
- Chuck Lever
--
corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com>
personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>
-
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/