Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2

[Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>]

Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
> He's probably confusing you from the real FUDers. I don't see you
> as a FUDer.

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence.

> He's just resentful fighting with you over attention from the same
> batch of strippers at last years OLS. :)

But I don't want to "fight" Ingo. There would just be no point
whatsoever with "fighting" with one the best developers Linux
has. I started my involvement in these recent threads with a
very clear statement that I was open to being shown wrong in
having exclusively championed the nanokernel approach in the
past. I set out to show myself wrong with these tests and
beside some vague expectations, I truely didn't know what I
was going to find. I certainly wouldn't have bet a hot-dog on
preempt_rt coming neck-to-neck with the ipipe on interrupt
latency ... So yes, in doing so some results I've found aren't
that nice. But, hell, I didn't invent those results. They are
there for anyone to repdroduce or contradict. I have no
monopoly over LMbench, PC hardware, the Linux kernel, or
anything else used to get those numbers.

Karim
-- 
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || karim@opersys.com || 1-866-677-4546