Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work
From: Huang Ying
Date: Thu Jun 24 2010 - 03:04:40 EST
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:58 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:50 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:47 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 14:43 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > > Hi, Peter,
> > >
> > > > I fact I uses exactly the similar method in my patches, just trigger it
> > > > with soft_irq instead of IRQ. Please take a look at
> > > > nmi_return_notifier_schedule in
> > >
> > > But then why still use softirq? Once you have this its completely
> > > useless.
> > Some systems have no self interrupt, for example the system without
> > APIC. We need to provide a fallback for them. soft_irq can help here.
> So there's systems that don't have self-ipi but do have NMI context?
Yes. NMI is there from 8259 age.
> Can't we run the callbacks from the tick or something for such legacy
> muck? I really don't like the whole softirq mess.
That is possible. But in NO_HZ system, we have no tick to rely on.
soft_irq is better here, because it will be triggered for any interrupt.
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/