Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11T19:17:32Z

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:

> > The current soft-irq states only gives us better hard-irq latency but
> > nothing else. I think the overhead runtime and the complication of the
> > code is way too big for gaining only that.
>
> Interrupt response is massive, check the adeos vs. RT numbers . They
> did one test which was just interrupt latency.

the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had
RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which
mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were
interrupt response times measured.

Ingo