![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> On Thursday 26 February 2004 13:30, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > hardware IRQ priorities are useless for the linux model. In > linux, the > > hardirq runs *very* briefly and then lets the softirq context do the > > longer taking work. hardware irq priorities then don't matter really > > because the hardirq's are hardly ever interrupted really, > and when they > > are they cause a performance *loss* due to cache trashing. > The latency > > added by waiting briefly is going to be really really short > for any sane > > hardware. Is the assumption that hardirq handlers are superfast also the reason why Linux calls all handlers on a shared interrupt, even if the first handler reports it was for its device? -- Andy - 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 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||