Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux | Date | Sun, 02 Jul 2000 08:54:34 -0400 | From | Paul Barton-Davis <> |
| |
>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/
| |