On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> A tasklet is useful only if you cannot enable interrupts because you are
> in hard irq context.
A tasklet can be useful for another reason. Consider that even if an IRQ
handler does run with interrupts enabled, its own IRQ line still has to
remain disa
On Saturday 16 April 2005 12:31 pm, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > What is the point of using a tasklet? It is about locking, not context.
> >
> > No! Just the reverse. The point of using a tasklet has nothing to do
> > with locking. It is about running time-consuming code in an
> > interrupt-en
> > What is the point of using a tasklet? It is about locking, not context.
>
> No! Just the reverse. The point of using a tasklet has nothing to do
> with locking. It is about running time-consuming code in an
> interrupt-enabled context. That's why bottom halves were invented in the
> first
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > But the enqueue times are worse, so are in more need of optimisation.
> >
> > Although enqueue took more time than IRQ handling on average, I'm more
> > concerned about maximum times. Enqueue's maximum time was worse on one of
> > the computers, IR
Am Samstag, 16. April 2005 04:47 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > The point is not whether things are interrupt-driven, it's whether or not
> > > interrupts are enabled. In a bottom-half handler all the time-consuming
> > > work can be done with interrupts
