On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 22:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Esben Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > 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'm not sure why. The soft-flag based local_irq_disable() should in fact
> > be a tiny bit faster than the cli based approach, on a fair number of
> > CPUs. But it should definitely not be slower in any measurable way.
> >
>
> Is there any such SMP concept as a local_preempt_disable() ?
>
You must think of preempt_disable() ? Except for the interface is a little
bit different using flags in local_irq_save(), preempt_disable() works
exactly the same way, blocking for everything but interrupts - on the
_local_ CPU. (Under PREEMPT_RT it ofcourse also blocks for threaded IRQ
handlers.)
Esben
-
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]
