Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Zachary Amsden wrote: > >> I think Jeremy's idea was to have interrupt handlers leave interrupts >> disabled on exit if pda.intr_mask was set. In which case, they would >> bypass all work and we could never get preempted. >> > > Yes, I was worried that if we left the isr without actually handling the > interrupt, it would still be asserted and we'd just get interrupted > again. The idea is that we avoid touching cli/sti for the common case > of no interrupts while interrupts are disabled, but we'd still need to > fall back to using them if an interrupt becomes pending. > > >> I don't think leaving hardware interrupts disabled for such a long >> time is good though. >> > > How long? It would be no longer than now, and possibly less, wouldn't it? > Hmm. Perhaps. Something about the asymmetry bothers me alot though. Zach _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
