RE: RT patch acceptance

[Sven Dietrich]

Esben Nielsen wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > 
> > Personally I think interrupt threads, spinlocks as sleeping mutexes 
> > and PI is something we should keep out of the kernel tree.
> 
> A general threaded interrupt is not a good thing. Ingo made 
> this to see how far he can press it. But having serial 
> drivers running in interrupt is way overkill. Even network 
> drivers can (provided they use DMA) run in interrupt without 
> hurting the overall latencies. It all depends on the driver 
> and how it interfaces with the rest of the kernel, especially 
> what locks are shared and how long the lock are taken. If 
> they are small enough, interrupt context and thus raw 
> spinlocks are good enough. In general, I think each driver 
> ought to be configurable: Either it runs in interrupt context 
> or it runs in a thread. The locks have to be changed 
> accordingly from raw spinlocks to mutexes.
> 

You can run interrupts in threads without any mutex.

There is a /proc interface to switch between threads / mutex.

-
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/