![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > > - tasklets have certain fairness limitations. (they are executed in > > softirq context and thus preempt everything, even if there is > > some potentially more important, high-priority task waiting to be > > executed.) > > Since -rt has been executing tasklets in process context for a long > time, I'm not sure this change would cause to many regressions. > However, it seems like implicit dependencies on "tasklets preempt > everything" might crop up. The other issue is if they don't "preempt > everything" (most of the time), what default priority do we give them > (all of the time)? [...] there is no such guarantee at all (of 'instant preemption'), even with current, softirq-based tasklets. A tasklet might be 'stolen' by another CPU. It might be delayed to the next timer tick (or other softirq execution). Or it might be delayed into a ksoftirqd context, which currently runs at nice +19. So your worry of implicit execution dependencies is unfounded, because, if they existed, they would be bad (and triggerable) bugs today too. Ingo - 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: 2007-06-22 22:19 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||