Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:58:41 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 12:52 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Right, in that case I would very much prefer the simpler thing I > > proposed over all this softirq stuff, we can have the tick process the > > callbacks for really broken hardware (perf_events doesn't care since > > without a lapic there's no pmi anyway). > > Ying's approach will work I think.
Right, except that I really dislike it, it touches far too much code for no particular reason.
And I really want hardirq context for perf callbacks, some code actually relies on it (I used to have the fallback in the timer softirq and that broke thing at some point).
So I'm really opposed to all the softirq molestation as I see no reason to do that at all.
| |