Messages in this thread | | | From | Peter Chubb <> | Date | Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:25 +1100 | Subject | Re: softirqd |
| |
Kernwek Jalsl said:
Kernwek> Sorry in case I was not very clear with my Kernwek> requirements. With real time interrupt I meant a Kernwek> real time task waiting for IO from this interrupt. Kernwek> Assume that I have a high priority interrupt and a Kernwek> real time task waiting for it. Well followimg are the Kernwek> various latencies involved: Kernwek> L1- interrupt latency Kernwek> L2- hard and soft IRQ completion Kernwek> L3 - scheduler latency Kernwek> L4 - scheduler completion
Kernwek> L1 is pretty acceptable on Linux.
I've been trying to measure this. On IA64 I'm measuring around 2.5microseconds (on a 900MHz machine). I personally think that this is too big, and could be reduced.
One thing I think we need to do early in 2.7 is to merge all those architecture-dependent arch/XXX/kernel/irq.c files, and try to reduce the amount of duplicated work done in the new merged file and the lower level architecture-specific files.
-- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au The technical we do immediately, the political takes *forever*
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |