Re: [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_work to do

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

 



On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 08:48:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 
> How "bad" is it? Is this something generic or just not getting
> perf events fast enough out? Most users don't seem to require small
> latencies.

I have vague memories of there being an actual perf problem if there's a
hole between the NMI/IRQ triggering the irq_work and the interrupt
running the work.

I should have some notes on it somewhere and an todo entry to plug the
hole.

But note that the MCE code also uses irq_work, they really _need_ to be
fast because the system might be crumbling under their feet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [RT Stable]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux