Re: Linux Kernel constraints!
Zygo Blaxell (uixjjji1@umail.furryterror.org)
21 Jan 1999 23:41:44 -0500
In article <788c2q$r6m$1@palladium.transmeta.com>,
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@transmeta.com> wrote:
>Followup to: <F1C298E6C941D111A18500805F89245932C188@MIDCBDC>
>By author: Yogesh Bansal <yogesh.bansal@tatainfotech.com>
>In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>> Recently(dec.) in WindowsNT magazine comparisons/similarities between
>> various flavours of unix and nt had come. In the same article Linux was
>> ignored as enterprise os on account of following kernel 'limitations' :
>> 1. kernel is not preemptive. ie even a higher priority user thread cant
>> cause another thread to be swapped if the other thread is presently running
>> in privileged/kernel context.
>2 and 3 are just plain incorrect, although the granularity could be
>improved. 1 is true, but is not a major problem in practice, except
>for hard real time. As an "enterprise OS" hard real time is hardly a
>requirement.
And if it is, use RT-Linux, which does have a pre-emptive kernel.
Sort of. It's actually a hard real-time microkernel that runs the entire
Linux kernel as a low-priority task. It's a hybrid solution but good enough
for a things that plain Linux isn't.
--
Zygo Blaxell (with a name like that, who needs a nick?)
Linux Engineer (my favorite official job title so far)
Corel Corporation (whose opinions sometimes differ from those shown above)
zygob@corel.ca (also zblaxell@furryterror.org)
-
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/