From: Ãric Piel
Date: Tue Aug 25 2009 - 17:09:58 EST

Op 25-08-09 21:08, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 14:03 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> I asked the questions I did out of pure curiosity, and that curiosity
>>> has been satisfied. It's not that I find it useless or whatnot (or that
>>> my opinion matters to anyone but me;). I personally find the concept of
>>> injecting an RTOS into a general purpose OS with no isolation to be
>>> alien. Intriguing, but very very alien.
>> Well lets work on the isolation piece then. We could run a regular process
>> on the RT cpu and switch back when OS services are needed?
> Christoph, stop being silly, this offline scheduler thing won't happen,
> full stop.
> Its not a maintainable solution, it doesn't integrate with existing
> kernel infrastructure, and its plain ugly.
> If you want something work within Linux, don't build kernels in kernels
> or other such ugly hacks.

For the one interested in such approach, you can have a look at an now
unmaintained project that we developed, ARTiS:

It allows several RT tasks to share a "RT" cpu, and if a task tries to
"cheat" by calling a kernel function which disables the preemption or
the interrupts, it is temporally migrated to another CPU. This is a
working approach, with some good low latency results which can be seen
in the papers on the website.

See you,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at