![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hello! > This sounds reasonable. However as a start I was thinking at having > hardirq run only the softirq they posted actively, and local_bh_enable > run only the softirq that have been posted by the critical section (not > from hardirqs happening on top of it). To all that I remember Ingo insisted that the run from local_bh_enable() is necessary for softirqs triggered by hardirqs while softirqs are disabled. Otherwise he observed random delays and redundant scheduler activity breaking at least tux fast path. Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||