![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 15:11 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > It sounds to me like both your proposals may be too complex and not > > sufficiently deterministic (I don't know for sure, maybe that's > > exactly what the RT people want). > > This is the solution already employed in the real world by OSX. It works > well, and the audio people have told me they are happy with it. > Alternatively, could you grant the required capabilities to use real RT scheduling and not foul up the scheduler? Or do a similar sort of thing with a userspace daemon that manages priorities and watches CPU usage? Basically I'd prefer not to put hacks in the (mainline) scheduler to handle this pretty specific special case. > > I could be completely off the rails though. I haven't really been > > following this thread so please shoot me in my foot if I have put it > > in my mouth. > > If your foot is in your mouth and you ask me to shoot you in the foot it > would blow your head off... Hmm it's tempting... > Meeeow! - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||