On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:30 +0200, Asier Tamayo wrote: > Hello Nivedita, > > Thanks for your answer. > > > What are your criteria? Do you care about anything other > > than performance (availability, upgrades, cost, support, > > compatibility, tools, ...)? > > > > (...) you're best off testing the solutions that you can > > get hold of with your own workload, in your own environment. > > > Performance is a must. Besides, costs and tools are very important. > Support is also important, but I guess I'd find some good support for > any of the solutions. > > My new CPU has an Intel Atom N270 @1.6 GHz processor. At the moment > (during the porting it might be optimized), I have 5 drivers requering > hard real-time (no loop can be skipped) and being called every 2 to 10 > ms. In fact, at the beginning I was using 1 ms, but I had some > problems with the hard real-time and changed the timing to 2 ms. I do > not consider using a legacy OS emulation. If tuned properly, PREEMPT_RT can easily handle 1ms requirements. On a standard x86 CPU (we support others than x86) our goal is never to be over 100us in reaction time. > > I know my final decission will have to be made after some real tests > on my own system, but at this moment I'm trying to gather as much > information as I can, regarding the pros and cons of each solution. One of the main benefits with running PREEMPT_RT is that any app that works on PREEMPT_RT also works on standard Linux. No special syscalls are needed. Which also means you can debug on any Linux box and then test on the PREEMP_RT box. -- Steve -- 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
