lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.543 / U:0.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site