On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 03:25:12AM -0700, 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
You could have asked me: aside from getting wierd OS failures (which is
always fun) there is a really interesting area in which "soft" realtime
applications interact with hard realtime applications: e.g. hard RT
collects frames, feeds them to a soft RT which does some mixing, and hard
RT outputs.
I think that the area in which hard and soft RT cooperate is one of the most
important research&development areas in OS.
> 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. 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.
> -- [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/
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
-- [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/
