> > just removing the if() and the explicit IRQ enabling already makes irqs no > > longer nest... > > I can see why that would raise eyebrows. I can see getting bashed > mercilessly with interrupt latency concerns as a result here. Can you > suggest any defenses?
hardirq handlers are supposed to be fast. If they're slow the code should (and generally is) using bottom halves/tasklets/softirqs. Combine this with the fact that each new irq handler will start with a bunch of cache misses, the latency added isn't generally that significant. In addition, the cache miss thing makes the nesting suck a lot, it's faster to batch the irqs in sequence. -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
