Could the patch be enabled by a kconfig option? Something like CONFIG_PREEMPT?
On Mon, May 28, 2018, 8:48 PM <valdis.kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2018 15:04:41 -0300, "Daniel." said:
> Does the RT patches have been merged in the main line? or, They will
> be merged at all?
Much of it has already been merged, the patchset used to be like 3-4 times the
size it is now.
> The main benefit of RT kernel is that decreases the latency right?
The point isn't to decrease the latency - realtime is about guaranteeing
a given process sufficient resources during each specified time interval.
Lowering the latency to open up more time is just one way to achieve that.
> I read that it make all parts of the kernel preemptive, is this right?
Well, that helps. If the CPU is currently busy in a non-preemptive chunk
of code in a filesystem for the next 25ms, and an RT task needs at least
10ms of time during the next 20ms or a robot is going to crash into a wall
and halt an assembly line, you have a problem.
> Why aren't these parts preemptive in the main line?
> What is the impact of making these parts preemptive?
>
> My general concept is that RT kernel has decreased latency, but
> increased overhead, ... is this right?
And that's why most of the rest isn't merged. It does add overhead and
decreases total system throughput. And for 98% of the people who swear
up and down they need RT for their gaming/music/whatever, it turns out that
the current soft-RT code in the kernel is quite sufficient.
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
