From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263851AbUG1Umf (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:42:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263875AbUG1Ume (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:42:34 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:64924 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263851AbUG1Umc (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:42:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] IRQ threads From: Lee Revell To: Bill Huey Cc: karim@opersys.com, Scott Wood , Ingo Molnar , "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" , Manas Saksena , Philippe Gerum , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <20040728202107.GA6952@nietzsche.lynx.com> References: <20040727225040.GA4370@yoda.timesys> <4107CA18.4060204@opersys.com> <1091039327.747.26.camel@mindpipe> <4107FA93.3030801@opersys.com> <1091043218.766.10.camel@mindpipe> <20040728202107.GA6952@nietzsche.lynx.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1091047369.791.35.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:42:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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