From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Schwebel Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT patch vs RTAI/Xenomai Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:58:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20100513175842.GN6055@pengutronix.de> References: <1273680443.27703.33.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <4BEBB1C8.90606@steinhoff.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Armin Steinhoff Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:45941 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753372Ab0EMR6n (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 13:58:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BEBB1C8.90606@steinhoff.de> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:01:12AM +0200, Armin Steinhoff wrote: > I did a test with user space based CAN driver. The Linux CAN interface is SocketCAN. Do you see a usecase where this doesn't fit? > Already the standard distribution of SUSE 11.2 (non RT) was able to > handle 1000 frames per seconds sent by a QNX6 machine !! Realtime != fast. > The latency test of PREEMPT_RT shows a latency of ~10us for a > dual-core box at 1.8GHz. It depends on the load. rsc -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |