From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_work to do Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:48:45 +0100 Message-ID: <52EBFE1D.4020201@linutronix.de> References: <1391178845-15837-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1391178845-15837-2-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20140131120757.594e24d6@gandalf.local.home> <20140131174227.GN9012@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140131125719.73340f6e@gandalf.local.home> <52EBF8FE.3080608@linutronix.de> <20140131143441.478f79ee@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Clark Williams To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140131143441.478f79ee@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On 01/31/2014 08:34 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > There's flags that determine when the next call should be invoked. The > irq_work_run() should return immediately if it was already done by the > arch specific call. The work wont be called twice. Well, it is called twice. It just does nothing because the list is empty & returns. > As I have worked on code that uses irq_work() I can say that we want > the arch specific interrupts. For those architectures that don't have > it will experience larger latencies for the work required. It's > basically, a "too bad" for them. How "bad" is it? Is this something generic or just not getting perf events fast enough out? Most users don't seem to require small latencies. > But to answer your question, no we want the immediate response. > > -- Steve Sebastian