[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] softirq-2.4.5-A1
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 09:08:51PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i took at look at your ksoftirq stuff yesterday, and i think it's
> completely unnecessery and adds serious overhead to softirq handling. The
> whole point of softirqs is to have maximum scalability and no
> serialization. Why did you add ksoftirqd, would you mind explaining it?

The only case ksoftirqd runs is when the stock kernel does the wrong
thing and potentially delays the softirq of 1/HZ. Nothing else.

When current kernel does the right thing ksoftirq cannot generate any
scalability problem and furthmore ksoftirqd is a per-cpu thing so if you
face a scalability problem with it that simply means you need to fix the
scheduler because then it means you would face a scalability issue as
well every time a tux thread calls schedule().

90% of the time ksoftirqd will never run, when it runs it means you want
to pay for a scheduler run to get it running. The price of the scheduler
is just the price for the logic that balance the softirq load in a fair
manner and without buggy latencies.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:54    [W:0.053 / U:2.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site