Re: [PATCH] ULI 2.6.12

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch_at_infradead.org>
Date: 2005-04-04 17:09:57
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:22:37AM +1000, Peter Chubb wrote:
> However, I think that the thing that bothers me *most* about SGI's ULI
> approach is that a full context switch is not done.  The ULI runs as
> if it were in the interrupted process's context.  `current' isn't
> changed, so it runs with the privileges of the interrupted process.
> The *way* it runs (CPU bound, presumably) will affect the scheduler's
> decisions about how to run the interrupted process in the next
> timeslice.  For most interrupt handlers this won't matter, but it'd be
> relatively easy to construct a malicious one to slow particular
> processes.

I agree.  Raymonds version looks like a hack for a very narrow special
case to me.   I really prefer your more portable and useful version, and
I don't think the performance differences matter given today hardware.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Mon Apr 4 03:10:47 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:37 EST