Re: 2.2.2: 2 thumbs up from lm
yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:09:11 -0700 (MST)
> yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu writes:
> > > > The technical problem here is that the thread may want to use libc
> > > > functions that are incompatible with the RT side. For example, I
> > > > can't see any way for a RT thread to safely "malloc".
> > >
> > > I've had some private discussions with Larry (he seems to like the
> > > idea), where I scribbled some ideas on how to solve these
> > > problems. The simplest is to just drop RT priority when entering the
> > > kernel.
> >
> > Can you show some example user code for this? I'm not sure I get how
> > it would work
> >
> > sched_setsched(RR..)
> > loop
> > do user stuff as Rt
> > syscall -- drop out of rt
> > drop back into rt
> > goto loop
> >
> > ?
>
> Erm, I don't quite see why you're asking about example user
> code. Unless you thought I meant that dropping RT was done in user
> code? That's not what I meant. I meant that inside the kernel you drop
> RT and pick up up again later.
I want to see what users will see. The posix rt are all system calls
So what does it look like from the user side?
-
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/