5 ms·
Thx but well, this kind of goes frontally against the other 2 answers I got (I understood that nothing ever gets explicitly terminated by the OS and I felt happ
by zepearl 8y ago
Thx but well, this kind of goes frontally against the other 2 answers I got (I understood that nothing ever gets explicitly terminated by the OS and I felt happy with that approach as it kind of made sense to me, but some now strong doubts are coming back again...).
- gizmo686 8y agoRealtime doesn't mean error free. A realtime OS might provide some form of a watchdog feature where it can detect when a program fails to meet its deadline. Think of it like a segfault in a traditional system. If everyone did their job correctly, it would never come up, but people make mistakes and it is better to detect them and fail in a controlled manner than it is not notice and fail in unpredictable ways.
- marcosdumay 8y agoOh, I've read them now. There are some answers about something we used to call "soft real time". Those OSes (Linux was one, for a while, it's not anymore) will have some processes marked as real time, and change the scheduling so that they will execute right at the correct moments. The gotcha is that there can not be many real time processes, since the OS has no way to resolve a conflict between them. What I described is called "hard real time". It is indeed a very different thing. Both kinds of OSes are in current use, on different niches.