From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753269AbXCSUzL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:55:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753319AbXCSUzL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:55:11 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:55479 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753269AbXCSUzJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:55:09 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Avi Kivity Cc: Bill Irwin , Arjan van de Ven , Hugh Dickins , Chuck Ebbert , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Wanted: simple, safe x86 stack overflow detection References: <45E5913D.3080505@redhat.com> <20070228204144.GA32316@one.firstfloor.org> <20070304015031.GA4224@holomorphy.com> <45EDBA1B.8050007@redhat.com> <20070306203432.GD18774@holomorphy.com> <1173241715.3236.16.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20070307064423.GH18774@holomorphy.com> <1173270892.3176.4.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20070307144816.GQ18774@holomorphy.com> <45EFBEB3.20708@argo.co.il> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:53:22 -0600 In-Reply-To: <45EFBEB3.20708@argo.co.il> (Avi Kivity's message of "Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:43:47 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity writes: > I don't understand why interrupt latency suffers. Sure, the interrupt that's > being masked is delayed, but on the other hand the interrupt that's doing the > masking is not. We're moving the latency from the first interrupt to the > second, probably with a slight gain in overall throughput. > > It *does* matter if the interrupts have meaningful priorities. Is that the case > here? No. I'll queue this in my irq things to think about... Eric