On 10/12/07, Ahmed S. Darwish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > Isn't disabling device interrupts from the begining of the ISR > > > "ad7142_interrupt" > > > till the kthread "ad7142_thread" got waked-up and scheduled a long time, > > > espicially if there's a high load on the userspace side ? > > > > > > > It is OK - you disable a specific interrupt line preventing it from > > raising any more IRQs until current one is serviced. > > Won't this affect system responsiveness if the IRQ line was shared ?
You are right, this would not work in case of shared IRQs. Hovewer this driver is for an embedded arch and the line is not shared. > > > > > This is different from disabling interrupts on CPU. > > > > mm, Why disabling interrupts in general. Doesn't IRQ hanlers of the same kind > got > executed in a serialized fashion even on SMPs ?. If so, why not just wakeup > our > custom-thread or use workqueues and let them do their business ? Because you don't want CPU to be continually interrupted while untill right thread gets scheduled. I think using work[queue] is the best solution for this driver, but you still want to mask that particular IRQ off until you do the read. -- Dmitry - 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/
