Re: RT patch acceptance

Nick Piggin
2005-05-24T08:33:46Z

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Of course this is weighed off against the improvements added to the
>>kernel. I'm personally not too clear on what those improvements are; a
>>bit better soft-realtime response? (I don't know) [...]
>
>
> what the -RT kernel (PREEMPT_RT) offers are guaranteed hard-realtime
> responses. ~15 usecs worst-case latency on a 2GHz Athlon64. On arbitrary
> (SCHED_OTHER) workloads. (I.e. i've measured such worst-case latencies
> when running 1000 hackbench tasks or when swapping the box to death, or
> when running 40 parallel copies of the LTP testsuite.)
>

Oh OK, I didn't realise it is aiming for hard RT. Cool! but
that wasn't so much the main point I was trying to make...

> so it's well worth the effort, but there's no hurry and all the changes
> are incremental anyway. I can understand Daniel's desire for more action
> (he's got a product to worry about), but upstream isnt ready for this
> yet.
>

Basically the same questions I think will still be up for debate.
Not that I want to start now, nor do I really have any feelings
on the matter yet (other than I'm glad you're not in a hurry :)).

For example, it may not be clear to everyone that it is
automatically well worth the effort ;) And others may really
want the functionality but prefer it to be done in a specialised
software like Christoph said.

Nick