Re: Interrupt starvation points

[Ingo Molnar]

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>         I found some points during schedule when interrupts are off
> for long periods . These two patches seem to help. One enables
> interrupts inside schedule() , so that interrupts are enabled after
> each need-resched loop, then disabled again before __schedule() is
> called. 
> 
>         The other patch enabled interrupt before calling up on
> kernel_sem ..This one could use some thinking over. I did this cause
> up() is very expensive on ARM , and combined with the looping above
> interrupts can stay off for a long time .. 

i'm wondering what the best approach would be. Right now if
DIRECT_PREEMPT is enabled [it's disabled currently] and a higher-prio
task has been woken up we switch to it without ever enabling interrupts
again. Re-enabling interrupts during schedule() will reduce irq
latencies but will lengthen critical sections.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/