Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:36:11 -0700 (PDT) | From | Daniel Walker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal |
| |
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> For me it is perfectly ok if RCU code, buffer caches etc use > raw_local_irq_disable(). I consider that code to be "core" code.
This distinction seem completly baseless to me. Core code doesn't carry any weight . The question is , can the code be called from real interrupt context ? If not then don't protect it.
> > The current soft-irq states only gives us better hard-irq latency but > nothing else. I think the overhead runtime and the complication of the > code is way too big for gaining only that.
Interrupt response is massive, check the adeos vs. RT numbers . They did one test which was just interrupt latency.
Daniel
- 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/
| |