RE: Why no interrupt priorities?

[Grover, Andrew]

> On Thursday 26 February 2004 13:30, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > hardware IRQ priorities are useless for the linux model. In 
> linux, the
> > hardirq runs *very* briefly and then lets the softirq context do the
> > longer taking work. hardware irq priorities then don't matter really
> > because the hardirq's are hardly ever interrupted really, 
> and when they
> > are they cause a performance *loss* due to cache trashing. 
> The latency
> > added by waiting briefly is going to be really really short 
> for any sane
> > hardware.

Is the assumption that hardirq handlers are superfast also the reason
why Linux calls all handlers on a shared interrupt, even if the first
handler reports it was for its device?

-- Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/