On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 13:37 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > How so?, its the natural extension of that work. > > Not the work to shrink the amount of time IRQ latencies > by shrinking the amount of time IRQs are disabled by > IRQ handlers. Ugh, that's done by pushing work out of the hardirq context, not by doing silly things like enabling irqs from hardirq context. > > > > we should simply always disable interrupts for > > > > interrupt handlers. > > > > > > That would be why you have refused to fix the bug > > > in lockdep, whereby it forcibly enables that flag? > > > > > > I've been wondering for some months now why you've > > > left that bug unfixed. > > > > Because running irq handlers with irqs enabled it plain silly. > > Not if you have hardware-prioritized IRQs, which are > fairly common in some environments ... handling an IRQ > for high priority device A needn't interfere with the > handler for lower priority device B, and the system > overall can work better. > > Not if you need to shrink IRQ latencies by minimizing > irqs-off critical sections everywhere ... IRQ handlers > being common offenders for keeping IRQs off too long. > > Not when IRQs can be disabled selectively around the > real critical sections ... so drivers can leave IRQs > enabled except in those brief sections. Yeah, and who gets to debug the stack overflow? Hardware with irq prio levels can do a prio mask and use a stack per prio level. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
