Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:23:40 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:08 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Surely that could be fixed? *requiring* hard irq context sounds weird. > > possibly, but there is no reason what so ever to use softirq here. > > > > broke thing at some point). > > > > I have one case that needs to sleep (but only when interrupting user code) > > They key thing in it really is to switch stacks back to process. > > softirq can't sleep either, you need a trampoline anyway.
What might make sense is to offer two types of callbacks: one that is immediate whenever an event triggers - and another that is sleepable and is executed from process context.
Having an intermediate softirq level might be over-design indeed.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |