User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Eliminating rwlocks and IRQF_DISABLED

Eliminating rwlocks and IRQF_DISABLED

Posted Dec 4, 2009 14:19 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1)
In reply to: Eliminating rwlocks and IRQF_DISABLED by naptastic
Parent article: Eliminating rwlocks and IRQF_DISABLED

Bear in mind that much of this work is being done by the principal developers behind the realtime preemption tree. I suspect that they're uninterested in increasing latencies...


(Log in to post comments)

Eliminating rwlocks and IRQF_DISABLED

Posted Dec 4, 2009 18:49 UTC (Fri) by naptastic (subscriber, #60139) [Link]

Yeah... what are they seeing that I'm not?

Eliminating rwlocks and IRQF_DISABLED

Posted Dec 5, 2009 23:51 UTC (Sat) by smipi1 (subscriber, #57041) [Link]

Provided interrupt handlers do nothing more than the absolute minimum in
interrupt context, this approach will not adversely affect latencies.

Allowing interrupt handlers to be interrupted actually is far worse: It
introduces context switching overhead and screws up overall predictability.

If all interrupt handlers simply feed threads (that actually do the
associated work) without interruption, latencies can be tuned by design and
not by accident. Balancing throughput and latency simply becomes a question
of educating your scheduler.


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds