Messages in this thread | | | From | Bert Thomas <> | Date | Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:02:11 +0100 | Subject | Re: I: [OT] R: R: How does Linux work? |
| |
In <19990608213447.C7067@pcep-jamie.cern.ch>, on 06/08/99 at 09:34 PM, Jamie Lokier <lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk> said:
>Marco Ermini wrote: >> > This is false. I'm not an NT fan, but its rt scheduling algorithms >> > are similar to Linux. There is a range of priorities that use an >> > adaptive scheduling algorithm for time-sharing, like linux, and >> >> Try it yourself: open the task manager and >> change the priority of a multimedia player >> to real-time on a Pentium 200. Then wait >> until the player it's over (mouse locked too).
>Do you mean everything stops *even if the RT task blocks*?
>Otherwise Linux has the same problem. If you set a task to have RT >priority, ordinary tasks stop running until the RT task blocks or >terminates.
>I don't know if NT's multimedia player blocks or not, but I'd guess not. >A typical video game would never block so of course would lock out >ordinary tasks if it had RT priority.
>RT priority is not to be used lightly. Games shouldn't use it except for >special things: maybe for the sound mixer thread. Then those threads >should take great care not to hog the CPU.
If memory serves me well, I believe that NT doesn't do priority inversions so that a high-priority thread can be blocked by a lower-priority thread and therefore miss a deadline.
----------------------------------------------------------- Bert Thomas <bert@brothom.nl> -----------------------------------------------------------
- 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/
| |