Re: [patch 0/2] Run interrupt handlers always with interrupts disabled

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:59 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > As long as it's rare (which it is) i dont see a problem: you can enable 
> > interrupts in the handler by using local_irq_enable(), like the IDE PIO 
> > drivers do. That way it's documented a bit better as well, because it shows 
> > the precise source of the latency, with a big comment explaining it, etc.
> 
> I don't think it's as rare as you think particularly in embedded, and the
> moment you start explicitly using local_irq_enable() you've simply moved
> the underlying problem back and made it far harder to grep for.

We've got local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() which should be used and can
easily be grep'ed for.

But yes, I would much prefer to simply convert these known slow handlers
to threaded interrupts.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux