lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:

> > 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.

the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had
RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which
mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were
interrupt response times measured.

Ingo
-
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: 2005-06-11 21:20    [W:0.190 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site