> > This is simple, but it allows one busy-looping high-priority process
> > kill the whole system, which is unacceptable, of course.  Something
> > like this + a safeguard system maybe..? :)
> 
> 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..

True.. but I'd hate to see a real-time process locking up the whole system
because of a bug or a naughty user.

  -jm