[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070501232743.GX26598@holomorphy.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:27:43 -0700
From: Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc: 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>, wli@...omorphy.com
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 05:36:06PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> Can we register them lazily at request_irq time?
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:51:25PM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote:
>> 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?
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:15:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 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.
Well, I don't really know how much of -rt or which pieces of it are
really going in. Otherwise it favors large-scale i386, which people
largely want to ignore/break/etc. I'll err on the side of caution and
not change it.
-- wli
-
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