Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261171AbVEYVi2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2005 17:38:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261180AbVEYVi2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2005 17:38:28 -0400 Received: from smtp.lnxw.com ([207.21.185.24]:60686 "EHLO smtp.lnxw.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261171AbVEYVi0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2005 17:38:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:43:16 -0700 To: Tom Vier Cc: Daniel Walker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance Message-ID: <20050525214316.GA30987@nietzsche.lynx.com> References: <1116890066.13086.61.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <20050525205841.GB28913@zero> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050525205841.GB28913@zero> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bill Huey (hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 906 Lines: 19 On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 04:58:41PM -0400, Tom Vier wrote: > If irqs are run in threads, which are scheduled, how are they scheduled? > fifo? What's the point then; simply to let the top half run to completion > before another top half starts? If it's about setting scheduling priorities > for irq threads, some one top half can prempt another, why not just use irq > levels, like bsd (using pic's is slower than using threads?)? The point is to have explicit scheduler control this kind with relation to the RT app in question and not bring back retro Vax 11/780 device drive semantics in the year 2005. Even FreeBSD/DragonFlyBSD has this stuff removed. bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/