lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: Schedule idle
    Rik van Riel writes:
    > In my view, RT tasks really should have absolute
    > priority over non-RT tasks and static priority
    > within it's own class.

    You know, what's sad about this continued debate about "RT" is
    that there is a persistent failure to understand that
    "real-time", as it is conventionally used, means "guaranteed
    response time". It does not mean "ASAP scheduling" or "minimum
    scheduling latency". There are inherent conflicts between
    real-time and timesharing that are not easy, or maybe not even
    possible, to resolve.

    If Richard Gooch had taken the tack that the Linux scheduler had
    undesirable latency when proposing his scheduler patches, I don't
    think I or several other people would have objected. But when he
    claimed that his patches would make Linux a better "real-time"
    operating system, I did object, because you can't make a
    real-time operating system out of a timesharing system just by
    fiddling with the scheduler, or implementing "priority
    inheritance", or doing other things that have been proposed.

    Linux is a timesharing system, by design, and that assumption is
    pervasive though things like interrupt handling and the driver
    model. Anyone who thinks that Linux can be made into a real-time
    system by fiddling with the scheduler and maybe a couple of other
    things is deluding himself.

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.021 / U:0.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site