| |||||||||||||
Talking past each other...Talking past each other...Posted Jun 2, 2005 15:45 UTC (Thu) by wa1hco (subscriber, #3628)Parent article: The beginning of the realtime preemption debate
Realtime discussions devolve into endless debates _because_ each party defines their interests differently: Soft realtime, Hard realtime, Provable realtime, desktop use, audio use, braking use, aircraft use, etc. etc. For a more productive conversation, we need to develop consistent terminology and recognize the value of other applications.
The nanokernel debate reminds me of the old RISC vs CISC debate. RISC attempted to use simplification to enable faster execution, but then the CISC people (Intel, et al) proved that with some effort, CISC can run as fast or faster than RISC. RISC really only offered a way to do fast _low budget_ cpu's
Nanokernel advocates seem to make a similar argument. They have a low budget (less complex) way to get real time. If the analogy holds, Ingo's patch will, with some extra effort, provide a way to address realtime requirements with as good or better performance.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||