On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:22:37AM +1000, Peter Chubb wrote: > However, I think that the thing that bothers me *most* about SGI's ULI > approach is that a full context switch is not done. The ULI runs as > if it were in the interrupted process's context. `current' isn't > changed, so it runs with the privileges of the interrupted process. > The *way* it runs (CPU bound, presumably) will affect the scheduler's > decisions about how to run the interrupted process in the next > timeslice. For most interrupt handlers this won't matter, but it'd be > relatively easy to construct a malicious one to slow particular > processes.
I agree. Raymonds version looks like a hack for a very narrow special case to me. I really prefer your more portable and useful version, and I don't think the performance differences matter given today hardware. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
