On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:08:53AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:59 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > As long as it's rare (which it is) i dont see a problem: you can enable 
> > > interrupts in the handler by using local_irq_enable(), like the IDE PIO 
> > > drivers do. That way it's documented a bit better as well, because it shows 
> > > the precise source of the latency, with a big comment explaining it, etc.
> > 
> > I don't think it's as rare as you think particularly in embedded, and the
> > moment you start explicitly using local_irq_enable() you've simply moved
> > the underlying problem back and made it far harder to grep for.
> 
> We've got local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() which should be used and can
> easily be grep'ed for.
> 
> But yes, I would much prefer to simply convert these known slow handlers
> to threaded interrupts.

That could be potentially hundreds in old obscure drivers all over the tree.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/