Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 12:52 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Right, in that case I would very much prefer the simpler thing I
> > proposed over all this softirq stuff, we can have the tick process the
> > callbacks for really broken hardware (perf_events doesn't care since
> > without a lapic there's no pmi anyway).
> 
> Ying's approach will work I think. 

Right, except that I really dislike it, it touches far too much code for
no particular reason.

And I really want hardirq context for perf callbacks, some code actually
relies on it (I used to have the fallback in the timer softirq and that
broke thing at some point).

So I'm really opposed to all the softirq molestation as I see no reason
to do that at all.


--
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/