On 12/11/15 15:23, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> Hmmm, UML is UP and does not support PREEMPT, so all spinlocks
>>> should be a no-op.
>> In that case, if I understand correctly what is going on, there are a
>> couple of places - the free_irqs(), activate_fd and the sigio handler
>> itself, wh
Epoll based interrupt controller.
IMPROVES: IO loop performance - no per fd lookups, allowing for
15% IO speedup in minimal config going to 100s of % with many
devices - a N^N lookup is now replaced by a log(N)
ADDS: True Write IRQ functionality
OBSOLETES: The need to cal
[snip]
>> Hmmm, UML is UP and does not support PREEMPT, so all spinlocks
>> should be a no-op.
> In that case, if I understand correctly what is going on, there are a
> couple of places - the free_irqs(), activate_fd and the sigio handler
> itself, where it should not be a mutex, not a spinlock. I
On 11/11/15 21:05, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Meyer wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 09.11.2015, 15:03 + schrieb Anton Ivanov:
>>> It throws a couple of harmless "epoll del fd" warnings on reboot
>>> which
>>> result the fact that disable_fd/enable_fd are not r
