[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277362680.1875.845.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:58:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:50 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:47 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:43 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > Hi, Peter,
> >
> > > I fact I uses exactly the similar method in my patches, just trigger it
> > > with soft_irq instead of IRQ. Please take a look at
> > > nmi_return_notifier_schedule in
> >
> > But then why still use softirq? Once you have this its completely
> > useless.
>
> Some systems have no self interrupt, for example the system without
> APIC. We need to provide a fallback for them. soft_irq can help here.
So there's systems that don't have self-ipi but do have NMI context?
Can't we run the callbacks from the tick or something for such legacy
muck? I really don't like the whole softirq mess.
--
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