Re: [offtopic] Re: 2.2.2: 2 thumbs up from lm

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:42:29 -0700 (MST)

> > One of the key points of a realtime system is that any latencies be
> > bounded. That's something you'd have one hell of job claiming for a lot
> > of OS/app combinations. Don't mistake "usually adequately fast" for
> > "realtime".
>
> Now, where does it say anything about "bounded latencies". By what
> authority? Since I defined realtime, I would like to know how
> an additional definition got appended to destroy the concept.

You can define it how you want, but there are extant other definitions so
you might confuse people. See, for example
@book{Stankovic,
author={John A. Stankovic and Krithi Ramamritham},
title="Hard Real-Time Systems" ,
series={IEEE Tutorials},
publisher="IEEE" ,
volume= 819,
year=1988 }

> If you want an OS that chops every task's CPU usage into, say,
> microsecond intervals, to obtain microsecond latency, you are not
> defining "realtime", you are defining an entirely different concept
> which is called controlled latency.

You don't need to chop CPU usage into microsecond intervals to get
microsecond latency.

-
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/