Re: RT patch acceptance

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

James Bruce wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>> Sorry James, we were talking about hard realtime. Read the thread.
> 
> 
> hard realtime = mathematically provable maximum latency
> 
> Yes, you'll want a nanokernel for that, you're right.  That's because 
> one has to analyze every line of code, and protect against introduced 
> regressions, which is almost impossible given the pace that Linux-proper 

Thank you, James. Now please tell that to Bill. It would seem
that I haven't written enough "RT media apps" for him to take
me seriously ;)

> 
> If you look at your first two messages in this thread however, you seem 
> to be offering a nanokernel approach (in particular RTAI as suggested by 
> Cristoph) as an alternative to the RT-patch.  This is sort of confused 
> by the fact that Ingo called it "hard realtime" because he measured a 
> maximum latency during a stress test.  Unfortunately that's not really 
> hard realtime if you are just measuring it; Rather its "really damn good 
> soft realtime".  An analysis of code paths could be done to determine if 
> something really does satisfy hard-RT constraints, but to my knowledge 
> that's not on the table at this point.  So you're discussing soft 
> realtime if you're dicussing the RT patch.
> 

No, I clarified the point that the direction the RT people want
to go in is hard-realtime in the Linux kernel.

I'm very well aware of what the actual current PREEMPT_RT patch is,
and I was never talking about that particular patch.

> So its really just a misunderstanding; Nanokernels certainly still have 
> a place for some applications even with the RT patches applied (Ingo has 
> said as much).  However expecting audio applications such as Jack to 
> have to use RTAI is kind of silly, and would end up annoying the authors 
> of both (I'm sure the RTAI people have better things to do than support 
> ALSA drivers in RT mode).
> 

Yes, Jack is more of a soft realtime application, and in that case
Linux supports it already today (although perhaps not very well -
something the RT patch aims to improve).

[snip rest]

> 
> I really hope we understand each other now, but if not I guess it wasn't 
> to be.  Hopefully someone got something out of reading this discussion, 
> but I won't be posting on this branch of the thread anymore either.
> 

It seems that you do understand my position now, yes.
I'll try to refrain from posting further, too.

Nick

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com