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