6 ms·
> Who needs throughput? Server software, but Linux is already dominant there and everyone's happy. For everything else, including desktop and mobile operating s
by RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> Who needs throughput? Server software, but Linux is already dominant there and everyone's happy. For everything else, including desktop and mobile operating systems realtime sounds like a good idea.
No, not at all. The actual question is who needs realtime.
Desktop is a typical place where you absolutely don't need realtime. You just want latency to be under the user perception threshold but that's easily achievable with a standard kernel. Plus the consequence of failing is basically nil. Why bother with the complexity introduced by a RT kernel?
The latency in modern desktop is not a consequence of unpredictable scheduling. It's just poorly optimised applications. A RT kernel is not a magical solution to that.
- cesarb 2y ago> Desktop is a typical place where you absolutely don't need realtime. On a desktop, you want at least soft real-time when playing any sort of multimedia (audio, video, or interactive applications like video games). Otherwise, you get things like glitched audio or dropped frames.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoYes, I agree especially for audio which is a typical exemple of a latency sensitive application (video games are generally purposefully design to be as latency insensitive as possible and will drop frames with no impact on actual gameplay). But a performent application and proper scheduler priorities will bring you there without a RT kernel.