Message-ID: <3C2C3F55.3BA4A0C3@sirius-cafe.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 10:45:57 +0100
From: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@sirius-cafe.de>
Reply-To: knobi@knobisoft.de
Organization: Knobisoft :-), Freising
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ...
> 
> >
> > Right, that was my question. George says, in your words, "for better
> 
> > standards compliancy ..." and I want to know why you guys think
> that.
> 
> The thought was that if someone need RT tasks he probably need a very
> low
> latency and so the idea that by applying global preemption decisions
> would
> lead to a better compliancy. But i'll be happy to ear that this is
> false
> anyway ...
> 

 without wanting to start a RT flame-fest, what do people really want
when they talk about RT in this [Linux] context:

- very low latency
- deterministic latency ("never to exceed")
- both
- something completely different

Thanks
Martin
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|Martin Knoblauch                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|http://www.knobisoft.de/cats                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|e-mail: knobi@knobisoft.de                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
-
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/