> Exactly. But it has never been intended to be a realtime system in the
> true sense of the word. Nor is that something we want to aim for. Consider
> for a moment that systems like QNX don't implement things like the page
> faulting half of virtual memory (though they still have separate address
> spaces) and ask yourself why they don't even in 1999 and you might begin
> to understand why there will never be an absolute guarantee on latency in
> Linux. Our average performance will be better though.
i agree that we are far from being RT, but i can see no contradiction
between having page-faultable virtual memory and soft-RT (or even
hard-RT). Obviously the RT process wants to use mlock().
-- mingo
-
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/