Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:07:01 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch |
| |
* Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> ... > > [the only remaining source of 'latency uncertainty' is the small > > asynchronous hardirq stub that would still remain. This has an effect > > that can be compared to e.g. cache effects and it cannot become unbound > > unless the CPU is bombarded with a very high number of interrupts.] > > 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....
yes, all of this assumes some _minimal_ sanity of the hardware environment. We do detect interrupt storms and turn those IRQ sources off, but there's no (sane) way to avoid interrupt storms from driver-handled IRQ sources.
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/
| |