On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 21:44, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 19:56, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 20:32, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It works on Amiga now, too. It can still use some optimizations in 
> >> the irq_{enable,disable,ack,mask,mask_ack,unmask} area, as my 
> >> BogoMIPS rating dropped by ca 2.5% and is now under 16, for a 25 MHz 
> >> 68040.
> >
> > Seems like everything (Atari/ARAnyM and Amiga) still works when using 
> > handle_simple_irq instead of handle_level_irq. As a bonus, BogoMIPS is 
> > above 16 again.

Your bogomips benchmark would be the best-case penalty, right?

Have you tried say, sending a ping flood to measure throughput and 
latency?

> 
> With handle_simple_irq(), we no longer need to define irq_{,un}mask() 
> methods in our irq_chips. Hence the "old" m68k platform interrupt code 
> seems to be much closer to genirq than I thought...
> 
> Does this make sense?

If the simple irq model gets us closer to the goal and doesn't kill 
performance then it makes sense to me.

Finn

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
>