> Linux is not real-time, it has a scheduler that, generally, makes sure > eventually everyone gets to run. I think people often understimate > how useful a \\\"live\\\" scheduler is and how limited a real-time priority > scheduler is.
I agree. That\'s why it is needed. And for realtime threads SCHED_FIFO/RR is used. I fail to see what this has to do with priority inheritance. Are you stating that Linux isn\'t suitable for any realtime use anyway and that I should in fact be using RTLinux? > > If the article is saying the programmer should be protected from missuse > > of priority inheritance by not supplying it, isn\'t that like Pascal? (I > > never liked Pascal). > > I think any use of priority inheritance is a misuse, and I am against > making the rest of the OS slow in order to provide it. Wel, I disagree. You have been stating this for years (and all this time, without a good reason). Now I still do not see a valid reason in your article. Apparently other people did see valid use for priority inheritance (me included). Does implementing priority inheritance make the operating system slower even when not using it? --martijn Powered by ASHosting
