Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:29:00 +0000 | From | Neil Conway <> | Subject | Re: [offtopic] Re: 2.2.2: 2 thumbs up from lm |
| |
Richard B. Johnson wrote: > Realtime has turned out to be a "buzzword" which is supposed to mean > "better" than something else. A realtime Operating System is something > that the designer(s) decided was "realtime" with no qualification > required. > > In some cases, realtime seems to mean that a user-mode thread can > be executed in the context of an interrupt (callbacks, etc.). In > others, realtime means the scheduler will be notified during an > ISR so that a task, waiting for ISR data, will get the CPU as > soon as possible. All these things are tricks from a programmer's > tool-box which can be used to help prevent external events from > getting old. They, themselves, do not define realtime. > > I just read an article from some Industry rag about using Java in > embeded realtime applications. I was about to fire off a letter > to the Publisher explaining that such crap was BS, etc. However, > I started to think about how many things you could make using > Java in its "realtime" application.
You seem to think "realtime" computing has a wishy-washy definition. Not so.
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".
Neil
- 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/
| |