Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
Of course this is weighed off against the improvements added to the
kernel. I'm personally not too clear on what those improvements are; a
bit better soft-realtime response? (I don't know) [...]
what the -RT kernel (PREEMPT_RT) offers are guaranteed hard-realtime
responses. ~15 usecs worst-case latency on a 2GHz Athlon64. On arbitrary
(SCHED_OTHER) workloads. (I.e. i've measured such worst-case latencies
when running 1000 hackbench tasks or when swapping the box to death, or
when running 40 parallel copies of the LTP testsuite.)
Oh OK, I didn't realise it is aiming for hard RT. Cool! but
that wasn't so much the main point I was trying to make...
so it's well worth the effort, but there's no hurry and all the changes
are incremental anyway. I can understand Daniel's desire for more action
(he's got a product to worry about), but upstream isnt ready for this
yet.
Basically the same questions I think will still be up for debate.
Not that I want to start now, nor do I really have any feelings
on the matter yet (other than I'm glad you're not in a hurry :)).
For example, it may not be clear to everyone that it is
automatically well worth the effort ;) And others may really
want the functionality but prefer it to be done in a specialised
software like Christoph said.
Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
