![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >>What do you think about deferring softirqs just while in critical >>sections? >> >>I'm not sure how well this works, and it is CONFIG_PREEMPT only but in >>theory it should prevent unbounded softirqs while under locks without >>taking the performance hit of doing the context switch. > > > i dont think this is sufficient. A high-prio RT task might be performing > something that is important to it but isnt in any critical section. This > includes userspace processing. We dont want to delay it with softirqs. > Given that we're looking for something acceptable for 2.6, how about adding if (rt_task(current)) kick ksoftirqd instead Otherwise, what is the performance penalty of doing all softirq processing from ksoftirqd? - 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 14:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||