Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:16:54 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |