Messages in this thread | | | From | yodaiken@chelm ... | Subject | Re: 2.2.2: 2 thumbs up from lm | Date | Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:09:11 -0700 (MST) |
| |
> yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu writes: > > > > The technical problem here is that the thread may want to use libc > > > > functions that are incompatible with the RT side. For example, I > > > > can't see any way for a RT thread to safely "malloc". > > > > > > I've had some private discussions with Larry (he seems to like the > > > idea), where I scribbled some ideas on how to solve these > > > problems. The simplest is to just drop RT priority when entering the > > > kernel. > > > > Can you show some example user code for this? I'm not sure I get how > > it would work > > > > sched_setsched(RR..) > > loop > > do user stuff as Rt > > syscall -- drop out of rt > > drop back into rt > > goto loop > > > > ? > > Erm, I don't quite see why you're asking about example user > code. Unless you thought I meant that dropping RT was done in user > code? That's not what I meant. I meant that inside the kernel you drop > RT and pick up up again later.
I want to see what users will see. The posix rt are all system calls So what does it look like from the user side?
- 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/
| |