lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From"Sven Dietrich" <>
    SubjectRE: RT patch acceptance
    DateTue, 24 May 2005 19:04:56 -0700
    Esben Nielsen wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 May 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > 
    > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
    > > 
    > > Personally I think interrupt threads, spinlocks as sleeping mutexes 
    > > and PI is something we should keep out of the kernel tree.
    > 
    > A general threaded interrupt is not a good thing. Ingo made 
    > this to see how far he can press it. But having serial 
    > drivers running in interrupt is way overkill. Even network 
    > drivers can (provided they use DMA) run in interrupt without 
    > hurting the overall latencies. It all depends on the driver 
    > and how it interfaces with the rest of the kernel, especially 
    > what locks are shared and how long the lock are taken. If 
    > they are small enough, interrupt context and thus raw 
    > spinlocks are good enough. In general, I think each driver 
    > ought to be configurable: Either it runs in interrupt context 
    > or it runs in a thread. The locks have to be changed 
    > accordingly from raw spinlocks to mutexes.
    > 
    
    You can run interrupts in threads without any mutex.
    
    There is a /proc interface to switch between threads / mutex.
    
    -
    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: 2005-05-25 04:09    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008