Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)

Hi,

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> > On ppc it should not be that difficult to even modify the exception entry 
> > code. Instead of calling do_IRQ use do_early_IRQ and only install the real 
> > handler later.
> 
> Yes, it's possible, but will add overhead to the common  IRQ path just
> to handle an early boot special case.

What I mean is to directly patch the exception entry code, so after the 
initialization is complete you'll have no additional overhead.
In the EXC_XFER_TEMPLATE() macro the handler is stored at i##n. You can 
either export that address or you can use a special transfer handler, 
which automatically patches the values once some flag is set.

bye, Roman
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
  • Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: adaptive readahead overheads
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] updated reiser4 - reduced cpu usage for writes by writing more than 4k at a time (has implications for generic write code and eventually for the IO layer)
• Previous by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
• Next by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]