| |||||||||||||
Why not just "cheat" and devote a whole core to the RT process?Why not just "cheat" and devote a whole core to the RT process?Posted Oct 20, 2012 19:09 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Why not just "cheat" and devote a whole core to the RT process? by Richard_J_Neill Parent article: Software interrupts and realtime
because it's really rare that your real time processing only needs to do computation on data it already has. Usually you need to do other things besides computation (like I/O of the audio, disk, etc)
At that point you are interacting with the rest of the system and you need to worry about delays and locking in the rest of the kernel.
(Log in to post comments)
Why not just "cheat" and devote a whole core to the RT process? Posted Oct 29, 2012 18:20 UTC (Mon) by cbf123 (guest, #74020) [Link]
Intel's networking fastpath basically just throws power consumption out the window and dedicates entire cpu cores to spinning on the network devices.
100% cpu usage, constantly, but you get really low-latency networking!
A somewhat less intrusive method is to direct only the interrupts you care about to the "isolated" cpu while leaving all the rest to be handled as normal.
|
|||||||||||||