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.
I do not think so.
In may be "worth fixing", but no, that does not mean you should stick
"if ints_disabled > 1msec panic()" into code. That would make most
systems unusable.
Think pio-only disks, for example. Think serial console.
Pavel
--
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.
-
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]
