On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> I suspect the only case that's really interesting here is interrupting
> idle. Maybe it would be possible to do some fast path in this case only.
Hardware-interrupts during kernel are actually fairly common under
network-intensive loads, even outside of idle (but idle is admittedly
likely *the* most common one). Many network loads are fairly
kernel-intensive.
Also, from a kernel perspective, idle isn't really any different from
most other kernel code. Using "ret" to return to the idle handler
would be *more* of a special case than using "ret" to return to just
generic kernel context.
So I disagree vehemently. Do *not* special-case idle. It makes the
code more complex and less generic.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
