Messages in this thread | | | From | yodaiken@chelm ... | Subject | Re: [offtopic] Re: 2.2.2: 2 thumbs up from lm | Date | Sat, 27 Feb 1999 22:42:29 -0700 (MST) |
| |
> > One of the key points of a realtime system is that any latencies be > > bounded. That's something you'd have one hell of job claiming for a lot > > of OS/app combinations. Don't mistake "usually adequately fast" for > > "realtime". > > Now, where does it say anything about "bounded latencies". By what > authority? Since I defined realtime, I would like to know how > an additional definition got appended to destroy the concept.
You can define it how you want, but there are extant other definitions so you might confuse people. See, for example @book{Stankovic, author={John A. Stankovic and Krithi Ramamritham}, title="Hard Real-Time Systems" , series={IEEE Tutorials}, publisher="IEEE" , volume= 819, year=1988 }
> If you want an OS that chops every task's CPU usage into, say, > microsecond intervals, to obtain microsecond latency, you are not > defining "realtime", you are defining an entirely different concept > which is called controlled latency.
You don't need to chop CPU usage into microsecond intervals to get microsecond latency.
- 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/
| |