[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1277377852.1875.950.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:10:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H.PeterA" <"nvin hpa"@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:08 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > And I really want hardirq context for perf callbacks, some code actually
> > relies on it (I used to have the fallback in the timer softirq and that
>
> Surely that could be fixed? *requiring* hard irq context sounds weird.
possibly, but there is no reason what so ever to use softirq here.
> > broke thing at some point).
>
> I have one case that needs to sleep (but only when interrupting user code)
> They key thing in it really is to switch stacks back to process.
softirq can't sleep either, you need a trampoline anyway.
--
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