Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:28:31 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >>You wouldn't need to do this to break out of interrupt context >>softirqs because you wouldn't bother returning to it. Just hand the >>work off to ksoftirqd. > > > this is plainly not the case. Look at eg. the net_tx_action() lock-break > i did in the -I1 patch. There we first create a private queue which we > work down. With my approach we can freely reschedule _within the loop_. > With your suggestion this is not possible. >
Sorry I missed that. Yeah if you are seeing high latencies *within* a single softirq then my thing obviously wouldn't work.
If they're as high as a couple of ms on your 2GHz machine, then they definitely shouldn't be processed in the interrupt path, so yeah doing them in process context is the best thing to do. - 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/
| |