Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:47:13 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal |
| |
* Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@mvista.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 22:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk> wrote: > > > > > > the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had > > > > RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which > > > > mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were > > > > interrupt response times measured. > > > > > > > You would accept a patch where I made this stuff optional? > > > > I'm not sure why. The soft-flag based local_irq_disable() should in fact > > be a tiny bit faster than the cli based approach, on a fair number of > > CPUs. But it should definitely not be slower in any measurable way. > > > > Is there any such SMP concept as a local_preempt_disable() ?
preempt_disable() is always 'local'. (has effect only on the current CPU)
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/
| |