Subject: Re: Floating point in the kernel
To: Bill Sommerfeld <email@example.com>
From: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/19/1998 11:46:04
On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> If you have a safeguard system to prevent a high-priority process from
> eating the CPU, you're no longer hard real-time, unless you've got
> some very sophisticated notion which allows the scheduler to
> distinguish when a high-priority process is spinning its wheels
> instead of doing useful work..
Well, not exactly. I don't see why a hard real-time system can't
say `nobody gets more than 80% of the CPU, ever.' It's the equivilant
of putting a slower CPU in the machine.
Curt Sampson <email@example.com> 604-257-9400 De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.
Any opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
The most widely ported operating system in the world: http://www.netbsd.org