From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7DF679E6 for ; Tue, 30 May 2006 03:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so619584ugf for ; Mon, 29 May 2006 10:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <82ecf08e0605291013t7bd1627bg92d13908b3d0b7b7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:13:16 -0300 From: "Thiago Galesi" To: "Laurent Lagrange" Subject: Re: Linux kernel thread with Linux 2.6.x In-Reply-To: <000201c68335$7c594b90$5201a8c0@GEG2400> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <000001c65d85$5e699890$5201a8c0@GEG2400> <000201c68335$7c594b90$5201a8c0@GEG2400> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > As the interrupt handler can't be scheduled, I have made a kernel thread > which waits forever on a semaphore. > This semaphore is set when a received packet interrupt occured. You should look into tasklets for this. Not that your system is not OK, but, as you said it, it's not fast enough. Note that you still have some limitations using tasklets, but it's more flexible than Interrupt handlers.