On 01/31/2014 08:34 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > There's flags that determine when the next call should be invoked. The > irq_work_run() should return immediately if it was already done by the > arch specific call. The work wont be called twice.
Well, it is called twice. It just does nothing because the list is empty & returns. > As I have worked on code that uses irq_work() I can say that we want > the arch specific interrupts. For those architectures that don't have > it will experience larger latencies for the work required. It's > basically, a "too bad" for them. How "bad" is it? Is this something generic or just not getting perf events fast enough out? Most users don't seem to require small latencies. > But to answer your question, no we want the immediate response. > > -- Steve Sebastian -- 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/
