![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> > everywhere will just trash performance. They are pure hardware interactions > > so you can't automatically detect them. > > Why should spin locks trash perfomance, while an expensive disable_irq() > doesn't? disable_irq only blocks _one_ interrupt line, spin_lock_irqsave locks the interrupt off on a uniprocessor, and 50% of the time off on a dual processor. If I use a spin lock you can't run a modem and an NE2000 card together on Linux 2.4. Thats why I had to do that work on the code. Its one of myriads of basic obvious cases that the pre-empt patch gets wrong - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||