Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Ingo Molnar]

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
-
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/