Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2005 19:57:34 -0400 | From | john cooper <> | Subject | Re: RT patch acceptance |
| |
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 22:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > >>>Here, I am talking about separating out the patch, and applying it >>>first, not dropping it from the RT implementation. >> >>I really dislike the idea of interrupt threads. It seems totally >>wrong to me to make such a fundamental operation as an interrupt >>much slower. If really any interrupts take too long they should >>move to workqueues instead and be preempted there. But keep >>the basic fundamental operations fast please (at least that used to be one >>of the Linux mottos that served it very well for many years, although more >>and more people seem to forget it now) > > IRQ threads are configurable. If you don't want them, you CAN turn them > off (if you have already turned them on). > > You don't HAVE to turn them on.
Unless you have configured PREEMPT_RT which requires PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS and PREEMPT_HARDIRQS such that spinlock-mutexes are able to synchronize interrupt processing. In other PREEMPT_* configuration modes inclusion of IRQ threads is optional.
I think this may have been the source of confusion in prior discussions.
-john
-- john.cooper@timesys.com - 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/
| |