lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-27 02:03    [W:0.020 / U:91.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site