Messages in this thread | | | From | "Sven Dietrich" <> | Subject | RE: RT patch acceptance | Date | Tue, 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/
| |