[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236333543.7260.138.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:59:03 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: remove IRQF_DISABLED
> If you have distinct interrupt priorities, you can
>
> 1) provide an interrupt stack for each priority
> 2) mask all lower priorities when handling one
>
> Would that not work?
The PIC does that already. IE. it will only interrupt again before
->eoi() for an interrupt of a higher priority. But by using
IRQF_DISABLED, you mask interrupts in the core, and thus effectively
completely prevents the whole thing.
> The problems with enabling irqs in hardirq handlers are that you get
> unlimited irq nesting, which is bad for your stack, furthermore, somehow
> people thing it makes things 'faster' because the irq-off latency goes
> down.
No, you don't get unlimited IRQ nesting, at least not on sane archs with
a decent PIC that does things like what I described above :-)
> The latter just isn't true, as you still have preemption disabled, so
> everything but irqs still suffers.
>
> The only way to make things low-latency is to pull work out of
> non-preemptable context. Using threaded IRQs is one way to do that.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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