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
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
> > 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 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
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
