Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753958AbYJBNBS (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:01:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753505AbYJBNBG (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:01:06 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158]:17686 "EHLO gateway-1237.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753515AbYJBNBE (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:01:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupt handlers From: Daniel Walker To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Arjan van de Veen , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Steven Rostedt , Jon Masters , Sven Dietrich In-Reply-To: <20081001223213.078984344@linutronix.de> References: <20081001223213.078984344@linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:53:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1222912413.2995.80.camel@laptop-eth.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1505 Lines: 33 On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 23:02 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The implementation provides an opt-in mechanism to convert drivers to > the threaded interrupt handler model contrary to the preempt-rt patch > where the threaded handlers are enabled by a brute force switch. The > brute force switch is suboptimal as it does not change the interrupt > handler -> tasklet/softirq interaction problems, but was the only way > which was possible for the limited man power of the preempt-rt > developers. > > Converting an interrupt to threaded makes only sense when the handler > code takes advantage of it by integrating tasklet/softirq > functionality and simplifying the locking. I'm not clear on your direction here.. I don't have a problem with a mass driver audit, which I think is what your suggesting with this patch set .. However, a mass audit like that would push a fully real time system out for quite some time.. I also don't see a clear connection between these changes and ultimately removing spinlock level latency in the kernel. I realize you don't address that in your comments, but this is part of the initiative to remove spinlock level latency.. So with this set of changes and in terms of real time, I'm wonder your going with this ? Daniel -- 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/