I'm annoyed that you take a comment in which I said that the Morton approach
was much preferrable to the preempt patch and respond by saying I "attack
any attempt to add realtime capabilities to the kernel".
I'm all in favor of people trying all sorts of things. My original comment
was that the numbers I'd seen all favored the Morton patch and I still
haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
I also made two very simple and specific comments:
1) I don't see how processor specific caching, which seems
essential for smp performance and will be more essential
with numa, works with this patch
2) preempt seems to lead inescapably to priority inherit. If this
is true, people better understand the ramifications now before they
commit.
Of course, I think there are strong limits to what you can get for RT
performance in the kernel - I think the RTLinux method is far superior.
Believe what you want - it won't change the numbers.
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/