Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:46:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:46:00 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-039-098.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.39.98]:26820 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:45:59 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Mark Mielke Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Adeos nanokernel for Linux kernel Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:45:16 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Oliver Xymoron , linux-kernel In-Reply-To:

<20020605165120.B25348@mark.mielke.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 05 June 2002 22:51, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 09:40:07PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 June 2002 21:13, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > > Neither have you, at least aside from hand-waving. > > Err. Skipless. Need I say more? > > I'm thinking along the lines of a 2Ghz P4 box performing skipless .mp3 > playing, that is not able to compile the Linux kernel in anything less > than 24 hours. So, you're worried that the realtime processing is going to suck performance? Don't worry about that. Really. Take a look at how Adeos works and add up the cycles consumed by the whole thing. It's insignificant. Just handling the timer interrupt with an iret consumes more cycles by far than all the interrupt pipeline overhead. You're imagining inefficiency where there is none. > This is where this reasoning takes us. "It's skipless it must be better!" It's definitely better to be skipless, now we want to have our cake and eat it too. We can. -- Daniel - 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/