Messages in this thread | | | From | (Zygo Blaxell) | Subject | Re: Linux Kernel constraints! | Date | 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/
| |