Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:32:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:32:37 -0400 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([204.178.40.224]:14976 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:32:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:35:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com To: Xinwen - Fu cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: kernel timers vs network card interrupt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1042 Lines: 32 On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Xinwen - Fu wrote: > Hi, all, > I'm curious that if a network card interrupt happens at the same > time as the kernel timer expires, what will happen? > > It's said the kernel timer is guaranteed accurate. But if > interrupts are not masked off, the network interrupt also should get > response when a kernel timer expires. So I don't know who will preempt > who. > > Thanks for information! > > Xinwen Fu The highest priority interrupt will get serviced first. It's the timer. Interrupts are serviced in priority-order. Hardware "remembers" which ones are pending so none are lost if some driver doesn't do something stupid. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Windows-2000/Professional isn't. - 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/