Re: RT patch acceptance

[Nick Piggin]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Of course this is weighed off against the improvements added to the
> > kernel. I'm personally not too clear on what those improvements are; a
> > bit better soft-realtime response? (I don't know) [...]
>
>
> what the -RT kernel (PREEMPT_RT) offers are guaranteed hard-realtime 
> responses. ~15 usecs worst-case latency on a 2GHz Athlon64. On arbitrary 
> (SCHED_OTHER) workloads. (I.e. i've measured such worst-case latencies 
> when running 1000 hackbench tasks or when swapping the box to death, or 
> when running 40 parallel copies of the LTP testsuite.)

Oh OK, I didn't realise it is aiming for hard RT. Cool! but
that wasn't so much the main point I was trying to make...

> so it's well worth the effort, but there's no hurry and all the changes 
> are incremental anyway. I can understand Daniel's desire for more action 
> (he's got a product to worry about), but upstream isnt ready for this 
> yet.

Basically the same questions I think will still be up for debate.
Not that I want to start now, nor do I really have any feelings
on the matter yet (other than I'm glad you're not in a hurry :)).

For example, it may not be clear to everyone that it is
automatically well worth the effort ;) And others may really
want the functionality but prefer it to be done in a specialised
software like Christoph said.

Nick

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/