Re: [patch] IRQ threads

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:21, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:33:38PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > I am familiar with Adeos, as well as other hard-RT solutions for Linux. 
> > I did my homework before deciding that I do not in fact need hard-RT, so
> > I really am not interested in your flamewars, keep them on your RT
> > mailing lists.
> > 
> > The part that was obvious commercially motivated FUD (and which you
> > omitted) t in which you badmouth TimeSys and its services, then  Your
> > .sig states that you are a consultant specializing in realtime and
> > embedded Linux.
> 
> With that said, there's really two camps that are emerging in the real
> time Linux field, dual and single kernel. The single kernel work that's
> current being done could very well get Linux to being hard RT, assuming
> that you solve all of the technical problems with things like RCU,
> etc... in 2.6.
> 
> The dual kernels folks would be in less of position to VAR their own
> stuff and sell proprietary products if Linux were to get native hard RT
> performance if you accept that economic criteria. Who knows what the
> actual results will be.

As I understand it there will still be a place for the current hard-RT
Linux solutions, because even if I can get five nines latency better
than N, this is not good enough for hard RT, as you need to be able to
mathematically demonstrate that you can *never* miss a deadline.

Or are you saying that the latest developments in the stock kernel make
this possible?

Lee