[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Why no interrupt priorities?
> On Thursday 26 February 2004 13:30, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > hardware IRQ priorities are useless for the linux model. In
> linux, the
> > hardirq runs *very* briefly and then lets the softirq context do the
> > longer taking work. hardware irq priorities then don't matter really
> > because the hardirq's are hardly ever interrupted really,
> and when they
> > are they cause a performance *loss* due to cache trashing.
> The latency
> > added by waiting briefly is going to be really really short
> for any sane
> > hardware.

Is the assumption that hardirq handlers are superfast also the reason
why Linux calls all handlers on a shared interrupt, even if the first
handler reports it was for its device?

-- Andy
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.095 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site