Re: [patch 2/3] genirq: warn about IRQF_SHARED|IRQF_DISABLED at the right place

[Jamie Lokier]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> We can tweak and tune until we're blue in the face, but the system's
> IRQ latency will always be worse if handlers always run with interrupts
> disabled.

Are you sure?

If good, fast irq handler A runs with interrupts enabled,
and good, fast irq handler B runs (interrupting A),
A's latency goes _up_ not down.

If B happens first, then you get B's latency going up, and A's latency going down.

It's not really clear what happens to average latency.  But if you
know that some handlers require lower latency than others (e.g. serial
ports with small FIFOs), it makes sense to prioritise them.

-- Jamie
--
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/