Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:00:19 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch |
| |
Hi!
> > Well, I do not follow you I guess. > > > > With large-enough number of hardirqs you do no progress at all. > > > > Even if only "sane" number of irqs, if they all decide to hit within one > > getpid(), this getpid is going to take quite long.... > > Pavel > > Ordinarily, yes. However, if it's a high-priority RT task that does > the getpid(), whose priority is higher than that of the RT tasks, > you'll get at most one hardirq stub per active IRQ number; after > that, the IRQs will be masked until their threads get a chance to be > scheduled.
But will not even num_IRQs*time_per_stub be so high that any analysis is impractical?
...
...
Hmm, that high-priority hask only has to eat num_IRQs*time_per_stub once, so perhaps its okay. Pavel
-- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - 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/
| |