lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1

* Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote:

> > - 0, p->name, p)) {
> > + SA_NODELAY, p->name, p)) {
> > printk (KERN_WARNING "%s: irq %d in use, "
> > "resorting to polled operation\n",
> > p->name, p->irq);
>
> Thanks for the patch. However, we actually wrote our own driver
> requesting the parport int instead of using the one in Linux. We just
> wanted to really customize the driver in as much as possible for
> benchmarking purposes.

in this case you'll still have to use SA_NODELAY - otherwise you'll get
an interrupt thread allocated, whose priority could, depending on the
order of IRQ requests, be lower than the priority of some other
interrupt threads. In that case not only do scheduling latencies get
added to your latency value, but also the worst-case latencies of other
IRQ handlers!

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: 2005-06-13 07:55    [W:0.170 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site