Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5

From: jamal (
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 08:58:22 EST

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 wrote:

> Hello!
> > One question which I have is why would you ever want to continue polling
> > if there is no work to be done? Is it a tradeoff between the amount of
> > time to handle an IRQ vs. the time to do a poll?
> Yes. IRQ even taken alone eat non-trivial amount of resources.
> Actually, I remember Jamal worked with machine, which had
> no io-apic and only irq ack/mask/unmask eated >15% of cpu there. :-)

This was Robert actually; conclusion was Interupts are very expensive. If
we can get rid of as many of them as possible, we are getting a side
benefit. I cant find the old data, but Robert has some data over here:

> "some hysteresis" is right word. This loop is an experiment with still
> unknown result yet. Originally, Jamal proposed to spin several times.
> I killed this.

It was a good idea you killed it, now that i think in retrospect,
The solution is much cleaner without it.

> Robert proposed to check inifinite loop yet. (Note,
> jiffies check is just a way to get rid of completely idle devices,
> one jiffie is enough lonf time to be considered infinite).

In my opinion we really dont need this. I did some quick testing, with and
without it and i dont see any differences.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:17 EST