On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> For me it is perfectly ok if RCU code, buffer caches etc use
> raw_local_irq_disable(). I consider that code to be "core" code.
This distinction seem completly baseless to me. Core code doesn't
carry any weight . The question is , can the code be called from real
interrupt context ? If not then don't protect it.
>
> The current soft-irq states only gives us better hard-irq latency but
> nothing else. I think the overhead runtime and the complication of the
> code is way too big for gaining only that.
Interrupt response is massive, check the adeos vs. RT numbers . They did
one test which was just interrupt latency.
Daniel
-
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]
