Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:43:54 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote: > > >>Yes, on a server you would probably disable threading for the disk and >>network IRQs (the VP patch lets you set this via /proc). This feature >>effectively gives you IPLs on Linux, albeit only two of them. [...] > > > nono, this has no relation to IPLs. IPLs are a pretty crude hack to > implement exclusion on a very (and too) broad level. IRQ threading is a > way to serialize hardirq contexts into a process context and to make > them schedulable and preemptable. It basically 'flattens out' all the > hardirq nesting (and parallelism) that may happen on a default kernel > and together with softirq 'flattening' it creates a deterministic > execution environment. > > it is not intended for servers, due to the overhead of redirection. It's > for realtime workloads and for latency-sensitive audio desktop > workloads. For servers and normal desktops the current IRQ and softirq > model is pretty OK.
Okay, I'll be the one to ask... what overload of the IPL acronym are you using here? I asked google and several jargon files, and they all say that IPL (initial program load) is IBMspeak for cold boot. Somehow I don't think that's what you mean here.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/
| |