From: Bernhard Kuhn <bkuhn@metrowerks.com>
To: Voicu Liviu <pacman@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [announcement, patch] real-time interrupts for the Linux kernel
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:38:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40017BFC.9000408@metrowerks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 400113EE.6060909@mscc.huji.ac.il
Voicu Liviu wrote:
> Can this be used for a normal desktop?
I don't think that real time interrupts are usefull for
a desktop environment: here, even interrupt latencies
below one millisecond should be more than good enough for
streaming/multimedia applications and games - if your
specific application is not "fast" or "reactive" enough,
i would tend to say that it is not the fault of the linux
kernel and it's the implementation of the application
itself or one of the related kernel drivers that needs
improovment. If you recognize interrupt response times
higher than a millisecond with a standard linux kernel,
then there is definitly a bad device driver or something
is broken with your hardware.
The real time interrupt patch is mostly intended to be
used in control loop and data aquisition applications
where higher latencies or jitters higher than a few
mirocseconds could have catastrophic consequences.
However, i can imagine that it makes sense to use
this patch for some very special networking devices
where the kernel might sometimes not be able to response
quick enough because it is just processing an
interrupt of type SA_INTERRUPT that takes too much
time. But in these cases, i guess it's simpler to fix
that other device driver (by moving parts of the interrupt
handler to a tasklet) rather than introducing
real time interrupts - the only problem with this
variant is that for oftenly changing hardware
configurations, you can never be sure if you catched
all "longest execution paths" and you may end up
spending most of your time improving other device
drivers.
BTW.: having interrupt priorities is only the first
step to make the kernel hard real time aware. The
next step would be to make the kernel scheduler
re-entrentable, so that a user space application
related to a high priority interrupt could run
at a higher priority than a low level interrupt service
routine (low priority interrupts are disabled while the
high priority application is running) - this scheme
is pretty similar to LXRT, except that the kernel scheduler
is used instead of an external dispatcher. But just
as like as with LXRT, you only have a very limited
set of system calls and you can easly lock up your system
when an application takes 100% of the CPU.
best regards
Bernhard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-11 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-09 1:44 [announcement, patch] real-time interrupts for the Linux kernel Bernhard Kuhn
2004-01-11 0:02 ` Bill Huey
2004-01-11 9:14 ` Voicu Liviu
2004-01-11 16:38 ` Bernhard Kuhn [this message]
2004-01-11 19:35 ` Voicu Liviu
2004-01-11 13:24 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-01-11 16:48 ` Bernhard Kuhn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40017BFC.9000408@metrowerks.com \
--to=bkuhn@metrowerks.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pacman@mscc.huji.ac.il \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox