* Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > to have sharp teeth nor any apparent poison fangs) - i simply > > concur with the reasons Peter listed that it is a technically > > inferior solution. > > Ok so you are saying that the reduction of OS latencies will make > the processor completely available and have no disturbances like > OFFLINE scheduling? I'm saying that your lack of trying to reduce even low-hanging-fruit latency sources that were pointed out to you fundamentally destroys your credibility in claiming that they are unfixable for all practical purposes. Or, to come up with a car analogy: it's a bit as if at a repair shop you complained that your car has a scratch on its cooler grid that annoys you, and you insisted that it be outfitted with a new diesel engine which needs no cooler grid (throwing away the nice Hemi block it has currently) - and ignored the mechanic's opinion that he loves the Hemi and that to him the scratch looks very much like bird-sh*t and that a proper car wash might do the trick too ;-) > Peter has not given a solution to the problem. Nor have you. What do you mean by 'has given a solution' - a patch? Peter mentioned a few things that you can try to reduce the worst-case latency of the timer tick. Peter also implemented the hr-tick solution (CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK) - it's mostly upstream but disabled because it had problems - if you are interested in improving this area you can fix and complete it. That would benefit ordinary Linux users too, not just rare isolation apps. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
