Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 May 2002 22:12:05 -0500 (CDT) | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] |
| |
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 May 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Can we make the whole kernel truly hard-RT? Sure, possible in theory. In > > practice? No way, José. It's just not mainline enough. > > Side note: we could, of course, mark some spinlocks (and thus some > code-paths) as being RT-safe, and then make sure that those spinlocks - > when they disable interrupts - actually disable the _hw_ interrupts even > with the RT patches. > > That would make those sequences usable even from within a RT subset, but > would obviously mean that those spinlocks have to be checked for latency > issues - because any user (also non-RT ones) would obviously be truly > uninterruptible within these spinlocks.
I'm sure you know this route is not very useful - there's practically nothing that we can push across the hard RT divide anyway. We can't do meaningful filesystem I/O, memory allocation, networking, or VM fiddling - what's left?
Cleaning up soft RT latencies will make the vast majority of people who think they want hard RT happy anyway.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |