From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: proposed FAQ entry for rt.wiki.kernel.org Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:52:09 -0700 Message-ID: <4AE0A9D9.6050604@us.ibm.com> References: <20091022120832.4bfd29e2@torg> <4AE0A17B.9020201@us.ibm.com> <20091022132948.480d3d03@torg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: RT , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra To: Clark Williams Return-path: Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:59416 "EHLO e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751675AbZJVSwO (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:52:14 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e37.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9MIpBTY011716 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:51:11 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n9MIqDkb156458 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:52:13 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n9MIqCYL020500 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:52:13 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20091022132948.480d3d03@torg> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Clark Williams wrote: > How's this: > > Q. How does Real-Time Linux (aka the PREEMPT_RT patch) improve > "latency"? Works for me >> I'm not sure the bit about "spinlocks have a context to return to" makes >> sense in an elevator-type pitch, might be too low level, and detract >> from the high-level message? >> > > Well, some of the people that have asked were actually looking for a > more technical description than was available in, ahem, Marketing > Literature. So I guess I was attempting to straddle that fence. I will > re-arrange that last sentence to put prioritization first or may be > split it into two sections. How about this: > > This means that interrupt service order may be prioritized by > assigning appropriate realtime priorities to the interrupt threads. I was specifically thinking that the balance between application and interrupt thread should be mentioned, while this seems to focus on the relative priorities of just the interrupt threads. -- Darren Hart IBM Linux Technology Center Real-Time Linux Team