The discussions I recall had to do with preemptive scheduling patches for linux.
On May 24, 2005, at 12:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: > From: Colin Perkins <[email protected]> > > >>>> And assuming that the OS was a realtime OS and thus could actually >>>> provide timing assurances to applications. >>>> >>> >>> I know as of a couple years ago the hardcore linux audio folks were >>> doing exactly this; I don't know the current state of the realtime >>> mods for linux. >>> > > >> but for rat we intentionally ignored this support, since it >> exposes a number of security issues (you have to make the application >> suid root and carefully drop privileges after enabling real-time >> scheduling) and didn't seem to offer much benefit. >> > > I guess the above mentioned one is POSIX.1b scheduling interface > (i.e. sched_setscheduler(2) syscall). AFAIK, it is not really related > to real-time scheduling and it is just a meaning to give higher > priority (1-99) to special processes than usual processes (priority > 0). > Real "real-time scheduling" involves timing deadlines, but the POSIX > scheduling interface does not concern the concept of deadline at all. > > Yes, it improved stability of MP3 playing on my Linux box several > years ago as you mentioned and it requires root priviledges. > > Kazuyuki Shudo > Grid Technology Research Center > National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology > (AIST) > >
