Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch
From: Pavel Machek (pavel_AT_ucw.cz)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 00:00:19 EEST
Hi!
> > Well, I do not follow you I guess.
> >
> > With large-enough number of hardirqs you do no progress at all.
> >
> > Even if only "sane" number of irqs, if they all decide to hit within one
> > getpid(), this getpid is going to take quite long....
> > Pavel
>
> Ordinarily, yes. However, if it's a high-priority RT task that does
> the getpid(), whose priority is higher than that of the RT tasks,
> you'll get at most one hardirq stub per active IRQ number; after
> that, the IRQs will be masked until their threads get a chance to be
> scheduled.
But will not even num_IRQs*time_per_stub be so high that any analysis
is impractical?
...
...
Hmm, that high-priority hask only has to eat num_IRQs*time_per_stub
once, so perhaps its okay.
Pavel
-- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 30 2004 - 10:38:25 EEST