Re: [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_workto do

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 01/31/2014 08:34 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> There's flags that determine when the next call should be invoked. The
> irq_work_run() should return immediately if it was already done by the
> arch specific call. The work wont be called twice.

Well, it is called twice. It just does nothing because the list is
empty & returns.

> As I have worked on code that uses irq_work() I can say that we want
> the arch specific interrupts. For those architectures that don't have
> it will experience larger latencies for the work required. It's
> basically, a "too bad" for them.

How "bad" is it? Is this something generic or just not getting
perf events fast enough out? Most users don't seem to require small
latencies.

> But to answer your question, no we want the immediate response.
> 
> -- Steve

Sebastian
--
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/