![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >>Of course this is weighed off against the improvements added to the >>kernel. I'm personally not too clear on what those improvements are; a >>bit better soft-realtime response? (I don't know) [...] > > > what the -RT kernel (PREEMPT_RT) offers are guaranteed hard-realtime > responses. ~15 usecs worst-case latency on a 2GHz Athlon64. On arbitrary > (SCHED_OTHER) workloads. (I.e. i've measured such worst-case latencies > when running 1000 hackbench tasks or when swapping the box to death, or > when running 40 parallel copies of the LTP testsuite.) > Oh OK, I didn't realise it is aiming for hard RT. Cool! but that wasn't so much the main point I was trying to make... > so it's well worth the effort, but there's no hurry and all the changes > are incremental anyway. I can understand Daniel's desire for more action > (he's got a product to worry about), but upstream isnt ready for this > yet. > Basically the same questions I think will still be up for debate. Not that I want to start now, nor do I really have any feelings on the matter yet (other than I'm glad you're not in a hurry :)). For example, it may not be clear to everyone that it is automatically well worth the effort ;) And others may really want the functionality but prefer it to be done in a specialised software like Christoph said. Nick - 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: 2005-05-24 10:40 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||