Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupthandlers

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Converting an interrupt to threaded makes only sense when the handler
> > > > code takes advantage of it by integrating tasklet/softirq
> > > > functionality and simplifying the locking.
> > > 
> > > I'm not clear on your direction here.. I don't have a problem with a
> > > mass driver audit, which I think is what your suggesting with this patch
> > > set .. However, a mass audit like that would push a fully real time
> > > system out for quite some time..
> > 
> > This has nothing to do with real time, although it helps.
> 
> Clearly threading irq handlers does have something to do with real time,
> unless this patch isn't actually threading anything ..

Clearly you have neither clue about real time nor about operating
systems in general. 

Solaris, some BSDs and MacOSX use interrupt threads. Where exactly is
the relation to realtime?

The concept of interrupt threads is nothing which is in any way
related to real time. It is a well known and pretty old concept in
operating system design.

The fact that real time operating systems benefit from interrupt
threads is a totally different topic.

	tglx
	
--
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/