lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: a joint letter on low latency and Linux
On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:

> Not if you read it this way: "we want feature XYZ, but we won't call
> it RT, because then people will tell us to use RTLinux, and we don't
> want to do that.".

They have given some good justification as to why RTLinux is not an
ideal solution for them.

> I think people advocating the scheduling/preemption hacks should go
> and run some exhaustive tests to find out how bad the latency can be
> with said patch, and then identify where the remaining latencies are
> coming from. Then fix the worst offender and run the tests again.

Which is actually what they are suggesting.

-d

--
| "Bombay is 250ms from New York in the new world order" - Alan Cox
| Damien Miller - http://www.mindrot.org/
| Email: djm@mindrot.org (home) -or- djm@ibs.com.au (work)




-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.040 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site