Anthony Liguori wrote: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> Jan, >> >> While the patch itself looks fine, IMO it would be better to move all >> of the timer handling to userspace, except the performance critical >> parts, >> since most of it is generic. Either periodic or one-shot timer, with: >> > > The reason for having the PIT in-kernel is not performance. The PIT is > not performance sensitive. I think that depends. Some OSes (in some configurations) use the PIT counter as clock source and/or program it regularly in one-shot mode. An aging use case, but still a valid one. > > It's because it was easier to do interrupt catch-up by pushing the PIT > into the kernel which IMHO was the wrong path to go down. Pushing the emulation of port 0x61 into the kernel was a mistake we now have to deal with. I'm not that sure about the PIT itself. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
