On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 20:21 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 08:55:45 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > It often happens to have simultaneous interrupts, for instance
> > when having double Ethernet attachment. With the current
> > implementation, we suffer the cost of kernel
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 20:21 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 08:55:45 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > It often happens to have simultaneous interrupts, for instance
> > when having double Ethernet attachment. With the current
> > implementation, we suffer the cost of kernel
On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 08:55:45 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> It often happens to have simultaneous interrupts, for instance
> when having double Ethernet attachment. With the current
> implementation, we suffer the cost of kernel entry/exit for each
> interrupt.
>
> This patch introduces a loop
On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 08:55:45 UTC, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> It often happens to have simultaneous interrupts, for instance
> when having double Ethernet attachment. With the current
> implementation, we suffer the cost of kernel entry/exit for each
> interrupt.
>
> This patch introduces a loop
It often happens to have simultaneous interrupts, for instance
when having double Ethernet attachment. With the current
implementation, we suffer the cost of kernel entry/exit for each
interrupt.
This patch introduces a loop in __do_irq() to handle all interrupts
at once before returning.
It often happens to have simultaneous interrupts, for instance
when having double Ethernet attachment. With the current
implementation, we suffer the cost of kernel entry/exit for each
interrupt.
This patch introduces a loop in __do_irq() to handle all interrupts
at once before returning.
6 matches
Mail list logo