linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] NEC EMMA2RH support

To: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NEC EMMA2RH support
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:52:52 +0100
Cc: dmitry pervushin <dpervushin@ru.mvista.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20060518111703.GA15601@networkno.de>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1147946423.8223.4.camel@diimka-laptop> <20060518195404.663eba86.yoichi_yuasa@tripeaks.co.jp> <1147950509.8223.10.camel@diimka-laptop> <20060518111703.GA15601@networkno.de>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:17:04PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:

> > May be, I have
> > misunderstood the modern ways in linux kernel development, but I am
> > pretty sure that assembler interrupt handler will be faster than C
> > code.
> 
> Only marginally, it doesn't outweigh the maintenance trouble.

Actually the average interrupt handler was sufficiently badly scheduled
such that the C written ones were usually better.  Not only, gcc knows
alot of CPU specifics about scheduling, so the average interrupt should
now suffer from many less taken branches.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>