This paper surveys 3 components of a real-time operating system: task scheduling, protocol processing and disk scheduling. Overall the paper is well written and clearly organized. However the paper is inconsistent in its expectations of the readers background and occasionally assumes the reader is well informed about issues in a real-time operating system. This is most apparent in section 3 which is difficult to understand without a strong background in real-time systems. ====================================================================== This paper discussed an interesting topic and explained it thoroughly and clearly (as well as possible in only 10 pages). The topic was focused enough to fit comfortably within the page limit but still cover the material well. The layout was easy to read, figures were incorporated into the paper smoothly, and the writing was well done. Scheduling is a key feature of RT systems and they explained the material and importance of the topic clearly. There were some sections where terms were used without being defined, though generally the authors understood and matched the audience's expected level of knowledge. The paper looks professionally laid out, is generally easy to read, and covers the topic material well. Section 3 didn't flow well with the rest of the paper well though, and could use some more editing. Overall I was quite impressed by this paper. ====================================================================== This paper focuses on Real-time operating systems and in particular observes task scheduling algorithms, protocol processing, and disk scheduling. For each of these cases, different approaches are presented as well as the recent work based on these approaches or the combination of those. The comparisons are provided nicely as well. The only downside parts of the paper are that some parts are covered too complicated and confusing and no new idea is offered other than the future directions stated. ====================================================================== 1. First thing that comes NO ABSTRACT!!!!! How does a reader know what they are trying to do?? 2. The title sounds like they are talking of Real time system resources. CPU and Device I/O come to mind. BUT they have talked about Protocol processing, Disk scheduling etc which are specific to COmmunicatin RT, Multimedia systems etc. They should have had a more suitable title. 3. They have used many terms without prior explanation or definitions. e.g. Schedulability analysis, Admission control, QoS Negotiation which they have assumed the reader is well versed with. 4. All through the paper, the authors have used ambiguous and non-technical terms that dont convey what they are trying to say. e.g. "... throw away more important tasks ..." Does this mean the tasks are never scheduled/considered again? "... first task to appear in the scheduler " What does appear mean? " Static user priorities are left to the user" Does this imply assigned by the user ? 5. Some statements are not justified. e.g. "THis strategy is well understood and contributes to wide popularity" - A reasonable thing to say provided there are backing statistics may be - This seems to be a popular strategy, based on stats and therefore seems to have been an appreciated one. "This does not take much effort for implementation.IT can be easily implemented by ..." A reasonable thing to say would have been - This may facilitate relatively simpler imlementation. Specially when this an implementation strategy suggested with no practical verification. 6. Suggestions for future research are not very novel and are reasonably obvious e.g. " Fault tolerance in Real time systems needs attention", "scheduling algorithms in Multimedia systems need to be developed for a tradeoff between quality and timeliness" These are fairly obvious. 7. The quality of criticism is a little weak. The have not clearly marked out their inferences since they get mixed up with some obvious results which have also been mentioned. e.g. "Threads need to interact synchronously in the face of pre-emption and context switches ; locking data structures ... This leads to run-time overhead and ensuing reduction in utilization" It is reasonably intuitive to figure out the overheads. ======================================================================