On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 00:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > Because it kills machine when interrupt latency gets too high?
> > > > > Like reading battery status using i2c...
> > > >
> > > > That's a bug in the I2C reader then. Don't shot the messenger for bad news.
> > >
> > > Disagreed.
> > >
> > > Linux is not real time OS. Perhaps some real-time constraints "may not
> > > spend > 100msec with interrupts disabled" would be healthy
> > ^^^^
> > You mean "microseconds", right? 100ms will be perceived by the user as,
> > well, their machine freezing for 100ms...
>
> I did mean miliseconds. IIRC current watchdog is at one second and it
> still triggers even in cases when operation just takes too long.
I thought there was an understanding that 1 ms would be the target for
desktop responsiveness. So yes, disabling interrupts for more than 1ms
is considered a bug.
Why do you need to disable interrupts for 100ms to read the battery
status exactly?
Lee
-
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]
