Re: [PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still

Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:45:34 +0100


On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 11:41:24AM -0600, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Because he is trying to change the kernel in a way that is obviously
> application specific, doesn't help the general case, and wasn't been
> shown to be necessary. It's not progress, it's just wacking the kernel
> so it works for him. He has every right to do that, but he has no right
> to expect that application specific hacks are going to show up in the
> generic kernel.

Actually his requirement for low and bounded RT latency is quite common.
That's why RT-linux was born, but it lacks a lot of the useful things in
Linux generally, like a nice development environment.

If we could have the best of both, many of us would be quite pleased.
It's not just low level device hacking either. The macroscopic
behaviour of big networks can be dependent on little things like a few
microseconds extra in the processing latency at the ends.

-- Jamie

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/