[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1106171337170.191@ibook.intranet>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:45:24 +1000 (EST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc: Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: m68k: Convert to genirq (WIP)
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:44, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 19:56, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 20:32, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It works on Amiga now, too. It can still use some optimizations in
> >> the irq_{enable,disable,ack,mask,mask_ack,unmask} area, as my
> >> BogoMIPS rating dropped by ca 2.5% and is now under 16, for a 25 MHz
> >> 68040.
> >
> > Seems like everything (Atari/ARAnyM and Amiga) still works when using
> > handle_simple_irq instead of handle_level_irq. As a bonus, BogoMIPS is
> > above 16 again.
Your bogomips benchmark would be the best-case penalty, right?
Have you tried say, sending a ping flood to measure throughput and
latency?
>
> With handle_simple_irq(), we no longer need to define irq_{,un}mask()
> methods in our irq_chips. Hence the "old" m68k platform interrupt code
> seems to be much closer to genirq than I thought...
>
> Does this make sense?
If the simple irq model gets us closer to the goal and doesn't kill
performance then it makes sense to me.
Finn
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists