From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: real-time priority Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:13:36 -0700 Message-ID: <49C2D1A0.9080005@am.sony.com> References: <49C2CAFB.5030702@lavabit.com> Reply-To: frank.rowand@am.sony.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org To: Rodrigo Amestica Return-path: Received: from tx2ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.14]:11191 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE008.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756806AbZCSX3G (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:29:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49C2CAFB.5030702@lavabit.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Rodrigo Amestica wrote: > Hi, > > general questions from somebody who's just starting to look into the > preempt patch. > > the article linked below makes direct reference to the behavior of the The link is missing. > preempt rt patch. The article was written in 2007. How much of that > still holds true in the current version of the patch? > > I'm basically wondering about the first sentences in the abstract of > that article. The big picture seems to be rather simple: calls to > specific linux services could break the performance of a real time task > by depending on lower priority tasks to complete that service. > > Does this mean that one must always be alert to which system services > are invoked during the execution of a real time task? Does the vanilla > kernel or the preempt-rt patch tries to somehow detect this condition > and alert somehow? > > thanks, > Rodrigo > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-rt-users" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >