Nathan Paul Simons wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:26:36AM +0100, Bart Thissen wrote:
> > Does any body has experience with the low latency kernel patch and
> > RTL together? I did try this combination once, and found serious
> > problems under heavy load, maybe related to bad memory.
>
> Excuse me for asking, but *why* would you want to do this? If you
> have RTLinux you get hard real-time guarantees, which can be used in the same
> way low latency can. As I remember, the low latency patch just sprinkled
> schedule() randomly on the kernel source like magic faery dust. Shouldn't
> make a damn bit of difference to RTLinux, since it preempts the regular
> Linux kernel anytime it wants.
>
Of cause it makes no difference to RTLinux, I understand that.
> Don't know if there are any adverse effects
> the other way around, since I haven't tried this, since I don't see the point.
>
If the low latency patch 'magic feary dust' works well, a lot of non-hardrealtime
tasks can stay in user space, with all it's advantages of programing (libc,
libpthread),
OS interface (VFS, sockets) and debugging (gdb) being available.
In other words: it makes life a lot easier :-)
Bart Thissen
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
