[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090302145757.38a44307.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:57:57 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net,
tglx@...utronix.de, me@...ipebalbi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
sameo@...nedhand.com
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:46:47 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:19:31 +0100
>
> > I state that every !IRQF_DISABLED usage is a bug, either due to broken
> > hardware or broken drivers.
>
> We'll send you the bill to have everyone's hardware
> replaced :-)
yes, but with what?
No matter how fast all our interrupt handlers are, running them with
local interrupts disabled has to worsen the worst-case interrupt
latency.
I don't see how removing !IRQF_DISABLED improves the kernel - in fact
there's a latency argument for making !IRQF_DISABLED the default.
--
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