From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:13:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:13:48 -0500 Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:34310 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:13:36 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:10:45 -0700 From: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com To: Jay Ts Cc: Andrew Morton , lkml , lad , xpert@xfree86.org, "mcrichto@mpp.ecs.umass.edu" Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] low-latency scheduling patch for 2.4.0 Message-ID: <20010120171045.B15918@hq.fsmlabs.com> In-Reply-To: <3A5D994A.1568A4D5@uow.edu.au> <200101130245.TAA02910@toltec.metran.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200101130245.TAA02910@toltec.metran.cx>; from Jay Ts on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 07:45:43PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 07:45:43PM -0700, Jay Ts wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Jay Ts wrote: > > > > > > Now about the only thing left is to get it included > > > in the standard kernel. Do you think Linus Torvalds is more likely > > > to accept these patches than Ingo's? I sure hope this one works out. > > > > We (or "he") need to decide up-front that Linux is to become > > a low latency kernel. Then we need to decide the best way of > > doing that. > > > > Making the kernel internally preemptive is probably the best way of > > doing this. But it's a *big* task > > Ouch. Yes, I agree that the ideal path is for Linus and the other > kernel developers and ... well, just about everyone ... is to create > a long-range strategy and 'roadmap' that includes support for low-latency. > > And making the kernel preemptive might be the best way to do that > (and I'm saying "might"...). Keep in mind that Ken Thompson & Dennis Ritchie did not decide on a non-preemptive strategy for UNIX because they were unaware of such methods or because they were stupid. And when Rob Pike redesigned a new "unix" Plan9 note there is no-preemptive kernel, and the core Linux designers have rejected preemptive kernels too. Now it is certainly possible that things have change and/or all these folks are just plain wrong. But I wouldn't bet too much on it. -- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/