Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Daniel Walker]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Esben Nielsen wrote:

> For me it is perfectly ok if RCU code, buffer caches etc use
> raw_local_irq_disable(). I consider that code to be "core" code.

This distinction seem completly baseless to me. Core code doesn't
carry any weight . The question is , can the code be called from real
interrupt context ? If not then don't protect it.

> 
> 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.


Daniel

-
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/