Messages in this thread | | | From | Steve VanDevender <> | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:40:57 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: 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/
| |