Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-06-13T07:10:06Z

On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 22:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> > You would accept a patch where I made this stuff optional?
>
> I'm not sure why. The soft-flag based local_irq_disable() should in fact
> be a tiny bit faster than the cli based approach, on a fair number of
> CPUs. But it should definitely not be slower in any measurable way.
>

Is there any such SMP concept as a local_preempt_disable() ?