Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:26:18 +0200 | | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy |
| |
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:48:02PM +0400, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > Hello! > > > Btw, you don't schedule the ksoftirqd thread if do_softirq() returns > > from the 'if(in_interrupt())' check. > > ksoftirqd will not be switched to before the first schedule > or ret form syscall, when softirqs will be processed in any case. > So, wake up in this case would be mistake.
Agreed.
> The _real_ problem is softirqs generated from another softirqs: > additonal thread is made _not_ to speed up softirqs, but to _tame_ > them (if I understood Andres's explanations correctly).
Exactly.
Andrea - 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/
|  |