Generic IRQ handling

2005-02-28 Thread Daniel Walker
with this, and it makes ARM integration a little easier . I also modified the make files so that individual files in kernel/irq/ can be compiled depending on config options. The full ARM RT patch is here, ftp://source.mvista.com/pub/realtime/arm/common_arm_realtime.patch Daniel Walker

[PATCH] Fix sleep_on functions

2005-02-24 Thread Daniel Walker
There is a problem with *_sleep_on() functions when they call schedule() . Interrupts should be enabled , but they aren't. So a warning message is printed letting everyone know that your calling schedule() from an invalid context. Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Interrupt starvation points

2005-02-11 Thread Daniel Walker
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:04, Russell King wrote: > > Please substantiate your claim that up() is very expensive on ARM. > I disagree: I should have made it clear that I was talking about the RT version of up() . The RT version doesn't have any assembly in it, and it is expensive. > Plus

Re: Interrupt starvation points

2005-02-11 Thread Daniel Walker
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 09:30, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i'm wondering what the best approach would be. Right now if > DIRECT_PREEMPT is enabled [it's disabled currently] and a higher-prio > task has been woken up we switch to it without ever enabling interrupts > again. Re-enabling interrupts during s

Interrupt starvation points

2005-02-11 Thread Daniel Walker
I found some points during schedule when interrupts are off for long periods . These two patches seem to help. One enables interrupts inside schedule() , so that interrupts are enabled after each need-resched loop, then disabled again before __schedule() is called. The other patch

Re: IRQ threading and non-generics

2005-02-09 Thread Daniel Walker
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 23:43, Ingo Molnar wrote: > eventually ARM should be merged to the generic IRQ subsystem and in the > process it is very likely that the generic IRQ subsystem has to be > changed to fit ARM's needs as well. But separating out new features and > keeping the old ARM blob in plac

Re: Preempt Real-time for ARM

2005-02-09 Thread Daniel Walker
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 04:50, Russell King wrote: > What you'll find is that the ARM interrupt structure is designed to > efficiently meet the requirements of our wide range of hardware interrupt > controllers, with chained interrupt controllers, with as low latency as > possible. > > In essence,

Preempt Real-time for ARM

2005-02-05 Thread Daniel Walker
time.patch The patch order is as follows http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/patch-2.6.11-rc3.bz2 http://people.redhat.com/~mingo/realtime-preempt/realtime-preempt-2.6.11-rc3-V0.7.38-01 common_arm_realtime.patch Enjoy! Daniel Walker - To unsubscribe from this list: sen

<    4   5   6   7   8   9