On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 10:45:19AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Russell King wrote:
>
> > Essentially, any complex interrupt handler (such as an IDE interrupt
> > doing a multi-sector PIO transfer _in interrupt context_) can cause this
> > kind of starvation. That's why Linux 1.x had bottom halves - so that
> > the time consuming work could be moved out of the interrupt handler,
> > thereby causing minimal the blockage of other interrupts.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that kind of design has been long since forgotten.
> > Apparantly modern machines are fast enough that it doesn't have to be
> > worried about anymore... Or are they?
>
> I would guess it is not that the machines are fast enough, but that this
> two-level processing makes things more complicated. Enough that most
> people would not bother digging into it unless really forced. Only
> occasional latency problems are probably not enough of a force.
It's a shame we don't have a way to measure IRQ latency - it would be
very useful to flag up problems.
I think the best we could do is to arrange for the timer interrupt to
complain if it's delayed by more than 1ms or so - but some architectures
already run their timers with IRQF_DISABLED as a work around some of
the latency issues.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
