Subject: Re: Hard realtime: Directions?
To: Oliver.Korpilla@gmx.de <Oliver.Korpilla@gmx.de>
From: SODA Noriyuki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/12/2005 16:41:49
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:29:12 +0200,
"Oliver.Korpilla@gmx.de" <Oliver.Korpilla@gmx.de> said:
> What do you think is meant with:
> "We need real-time scheduling support, POSIX real-time extensions, and
> thread-safe libraries. There is an increasing number of applications
> related to video, voice, and control that need hard real-time support.
> We can start by bullet-proofing our thread support and finishing the
> re-entrancy issues with our libraries, then continue by evaluating
> real-time scheduling and making subsystems of our kernel able to use
> multiple processors."
> From: [Also available at
> http://www.netbsd.org/Foundation/reports/2004.html] Report of the 2004
> Annual NetBSD Group Meeting
> Does any of this sound reasonable?
Yes, all of the goals are reasonable, except calling it as "hard
> It sounds mostly out of reach at the time, don't you think. One
> could improve on the scheduler, or imnplement POSIX real-time stuff
> like "realtime" priorities - but it would just be a facade with not
> much to back it up, don't you think?
Not just a facade I think, because all of those must improve latency.