Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk>]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> 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.
> 
You would accept a patch where I made this stuff optional?

I have another problem:
I can't hide that my aim is to make task-latencies deterministic.
The worry is local_irq_disable() (and preempt_disable()). I can undefine
it and therefore find where it is used. I can then look at the code, make
it into raw_local_irq_disable() or try to make a lock.
In many cases the raw-irq disable is the best and simplest when I am only
worried about task-latencies. But now Daniel and Sven wants to use the
distingtion between raw_local_irq_disable() and local_irq_disable() to
make irqs fast. 
We do have a clash of notations. Any idea what to do? I mentioned
 local_
 raw_local_
 hard_local_

Would that work?


> 	Ingo

Esben

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/