Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] IRQ threads | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:42:51 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:21, Bill Huey wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:33:38PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > > I am familiar with Adeos, as well as other hard-RT solutions for Linux. > > I did my homework before deciding that I do not in fact need hard-RT, so > > I really am not interested in your flamewars, keep them on your RT > > mailing lists. > > > > The part that was obvious commercially motivated FUD (and which you > > omitted) t in which you badmouth TimeSys and its services, then Your > > .sig states that you are a consultant specializing in realtime and > > embedded Linux. > > With that said, there's really two camps that are emerging in the real > time Linux field, dual and single kernel. The single kernel work that's > current being done could very well get Linux to being hard RT, assuming > that you solve all of the technical problems with things like RCU, > etc... in 2.6. > > The dual kernels folks would be in less of position to VAR their own > stuff and sell proprietary products if Linux were to get native hard RT > performance if you accept that economic criteria. Who knows what the > actual results will be.
As I understand it there will still be a place for the current hard-RT Linux solutions, because even if I can get five nines latency better than N, this is not good enough for hard RT, as you need to be able to mathematically demonstrate that you can *never* miss a deadline.
Or are you saying that the latest developments in the stock kernel make this possible?
Lee
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |