Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ...

[Martin Knoblauch]

> Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ...
> 
> >
> > Right, that was my question. George says, in your words, "for better
> 
> > standards compliancy ..." and I want to know why you guys think
> that.
> 
> The thought was that if someone need RT tasks he probably need a very
> low
> latency and so the idea that by applying global preemption decisions
> would
> lead to a better compliancy. But i'll be happy to ear that this is
> false
> anyway ...
> 

 without wanting to start a RT flame-fest, what do people really want
when they talk about RT in this [Linux] context:

- very low latency
- deterministic latency ("never to exceed")
- both
- something completely different

Thanks
Martin
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|Martin Knoblauch                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|http://www.knobisoft.de/cats                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|e-mail: [e-mail]                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------+