On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 13:51 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > We have had a specific problem with the current generic linux IRQ code > for ages, in that indirection via function pointers is horribly > expensive for us (basically, the CPU pipes stall). We'd like to use the > new genirq infrastructure to mitigate some of the problem. > > I didn't want simply to move the irq handlers back into our arch code > again, since that would remove all the benefits of common handling code. > What I did was template out the common code in a way that keeps it > common but allows an architecture to modify it (for us to put our acks > and eoi's in as functions instead of function pointers). > > If everyone is OK with this, I'll introduce a new type of interrupt with > a specific handler (so for our heavily called interrupts like timer and > IPI we don't even need to indirect through action->handler()).
I don't have any objection to this patch as long as the current behaviour with function pointers still works fine (which seems to be the case from a quick look through the patch). On PowerPC, we have a huge variety of interrupt controllers and cascaded controllers and thus we can't really apply your shortcut. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
