From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261785AbVFKTRc (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:17:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261786AbVFKTRc (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:17:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:11165 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261785AbVFKTRa (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:17:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:16:54 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Walker Cc: Esben Nielsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sdietrich@mvista.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal Message-ID: <20050611191654.GA22301@elte.hu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Daniel Walker wrote: > > The current soft-irq states only gives us better hard-irq latency but > > nothing else. I think the overhead runtime and the complication of the > > code is way too big for gaining only that. > > Interrupt response is massive, check the adeos vs. RT numbers . They > did one test which was just interrupt latency. the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were interrupt response times measured. Ingo