On 10/12/07, Ahmed S. Darwish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't disabling device interrupts from the begining of the ISR "ad7142_interrupt"
> > > till the kthread "ad7142_thread" got waked-up and scheduled a long time,
> > > espicially if there's a high load on the userspace side ?
> > >
> >
> > It is OK - you disable a specific interrupt line preventing it from
> > raising any more IRQs until current one is serviced.
>
> Won't this affect system responsiveness if the IRQ line was shared ?
You are right, this would not work in case of shared IRQs. Hovewer
this driver is for an embedded arch and the line is not shared.
>
> >
> > This is different from disabling interrupts on CPU.
> >
>
> mm, Why disabling interrupts in general. Doesn't IRQ hanlers of the same kind got
> executed in a serialized fashion even on SMPs ?. If so, why not just wakeup our
> custom-thread or use workqueues and let them do their business ?
Because you don't want CPU to be continually interrupted while untill
right thread gets scheduled. I think using work[queue] is the best
solution for this driver, but you still want to mask that particular
IRQ off until you do the read.
--
Dmitry
-
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]