Re: RT patch acceptance

[john cooper]

Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 22:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > Here, I am talking about separating out the patch, and applying it
> > > first, not dropping it from the RT implementation. 
> >
> > I really dislike the idea of interrupt threads. It seems totally
> > wrong to me to make such a fundamental operation as an interrupt
> > much slower.  If really any interrupts take too long they should
> > move to workqueues instead and be preempted there. But keep
> > the basic fundamental operations fast please (at least that used to be one
> > of the Linux mottos that served it very well for many years, although more
> > and more people seem to forget it now) 
>
> IRQ threads are configurable.  If you don't want them, you CAN turn them
> off (if you have already turned them on). 
>
> You don't HAVE to turn them on. 

Unless you have configured PREEMPT_RT which requires
PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS and PREEMPT_HARDIRQS such that
spinlock-mutexes are able to synchronize interrupt
processing.  In other PREEMPT_* configuration modes
inclusion of IRQ threads is optional.

I think this may have been the source of confusion in
prior discussions.

-john


--
john.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxx
-
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/