lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel
From
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> I suspect the only case that's really interesting here is interrupting
> idle. Maybe it would be possible to do some fast path in this case only.

Hardware-interrupts during kernel are actually fairly common under
network-intensive loads, even outside of idle (but idle is admittedly
likely *the* most common one). Many network loads are fairly
kernel-intensive.

Also, from a kernel perspective, idle isn't really any different from
most other kernel code. Using "ret" to return to the idle handler
would be *more* of a special case than using "ret" to return to just
generic kernel context.

So I disagree vehemently. Do *not* special-case idle. It makes the
code more complex and less generic.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-23 15:41    [W:0.139 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site