<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Hi guys,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I hope I&#39;m on right mailing list. :-)<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I think I get the pro of using threaded interrupts - to decrease the maximum<br>interrupt latency on RT workloads and/or RT machines (servers, embedded, etc.).<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Also, I see that in 4.2 there are only ~76 drivers that use threaded interrupt:<br>```<br>$ git grep -l IRQ_WAKE_THREAD | sort | grep -v &quot;\.h&quot; | wc -l<br>76<br>```<br></div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">​So, I&#39;d like to ask:<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">   - Why not **all** of the drivers use the threaded interrupts?<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">   - What are the cons of the threaded interrupts?​</div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thanks,<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">--- KostaZ<br></div></div>