29 Jul
2004
29 Jul
'04
7:24 p.m.
* Pavel Machek <pavel(a)ucw.cz> wrote:
...
yes, all of this assumes some _minimal_ sanity of the hardware
environment. We do detect interrupt storms and turn those IRQ sources
off, but there's no (sane) way to avoid interrupt storms from
driver-handled IRQ sources.
Ingo
[the only remaining source of 'latency
uncertainty' is the small
asynchronous hardirq stub that would still remain. This has an effect
that can be compared to e.g. cache effects and it cannot become unbound
unless the CPU is bombarded with a very high number of interrupts.]
Well, I do not follow you I guess.
With large-enough number of hardirqs you do no progress at all.
Even if only "sane" number of irqs, if they all decide to hit within
one getpid(), this getpid is going to take quite long....