|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Mark Hounschell <markh-AT-compro.net>|
|| ||Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default|
|| ||Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:42:01 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin-AT-yahoo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>,
Stefani Seibold <stefani-AT-seibold.net>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin-AT-linux.it>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk-AT-qualcomm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> More and more are wanting and now finding the Linux kernel to be more
> RT capable. I seem to remember way back you saying it was one thing you didn't
> really care much about one way or the other. Thats OK. But, you _are_ the man.
The thing is, the reason I dislike RT is that so many people have so
different understanding of what RT means.
Quite frankly, I think that the people who are complaining (like you)
think that RT means "hard realtime". You think about literally specialized
A lot of _other_ people think that RT means "good audio latency", where it
really is a lot softer.
And neither camp seems to ever admit that they are just a small camp, and
that the other camp exists or is even valid.
And I'm not really interested. Quite frankly, I suspect the "we want to
run something like pulseaudio with RT priorities" camp is the more common
one, and in that context I understand limiting SCHED_FIFO sounds perfectly
As to your
> "just to protect a few _supposedly_ bad programmers???"
quite frankly, most programmers aren't "supposedly bad". And if you think
that the hard-RT "real man" programmers aren't bad, I really have nothing
to post comments)