* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had
RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which
mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were
interrupt response times measured.
Ingo
-
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]
