Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 May 2014 07:33:32 +0900 | Subject | Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
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
| |