Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:14:45 +0100 | | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | | Subject | Re: Why no interrupt priorities? |
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:21:34PM -0800, Mark Gross 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.
>
> Keep in mind the context is Linux running on non-sane hardware, sloooow CPUs,
50Mhz is already really really fast in this context.
> latency sensitive small io buffers etc. Losing system wide throughput to have
> the hardware codec not be starved is a happy trade off to make.
The point I tried to make was that it would INCREASE latency. Unless you
have misdesigned device drivers, which is something that is fixable :)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |