[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070501231548.GF11115@waste.org>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 18:15:48 -0500
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Zan Lynx <zlynx@....org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2/6] add config option to vmalloc stacks (was: Re: [-mm patch] i386: enable 4k stacks by default)
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:51:25PM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 08:15:11PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> So if you want to invest some time into getting this into mergeable
> >> shape I'd suggest you redo the patch series in the following way:
> >> patch 1: dynamic allocated irq stacks
>
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:36:06PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Can we register them lazily at request_irq time?
>
> These IRQ stacks are per-cpu, not per-IRQ. It may make sense to
> implement per-IRQ stacks, in which case dynamic allocation at the time
> of request_irq() will make sense.
>
> Would you like me to implement per-IRQ IRQ stacks?
It's probably the "right" thing to do, but it does have higher
overhead for most systems.
But it also gives a very obvious migration path to -rt's irq threads.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists