>What absolutely amazes me about this thread is that the folks who need
>low latency (we all do really) have stubornly stuck to their guns asking
>for scheduling garantees despite excellent explainations that this is by
>definition asking for hard RT.
Because we have (gasp!) empirical measurements that the preemption
point approach works to satisfy the performance characteristics we've
outlined.
Thats why we (the original signees of the letter) were interested in
finding out more about the objections to Ingo's patches.
>The problem has been universally ACKed [1]
...
>1. in my experience, this means the problem is doomed.
Except that we've had, in your words "excellent explanations that this
is by definition asking for hard RT". So if the problem really has
been ACKed, which I think I accept it has, and if there is really some
sense that it should be solved, which there might be, doesn't this
imply, in your own words, that Linux has to incorporate hard real-time ?
>and the best currently available
>work-around universally NAKed [2] on purely technical grounds.
More accurate, I think, to say "purely aesthetic grounds". Its easy to
demonstrate that Ingo's patches work extremely well. The dispute is
over what they would do to the kernel in terms of design and/or
maintainance.
>I would wager that Ingo's next (promised) effort will do much better on
>the technical merit test.
It wouldn't suprise me either. Ingo pulled a rabbit out of a hat the
last time, and I would judge him quite capable of extracting the TGV
from a thimble if he tries it again.
--p
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST