[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] softirq-2.4.5-B0

Ingo Molnar writes:
> the bug/misbehavior causing bad latencies turned out to be the following:
> if a hardirq triggers a softirq, but syscall-level code on the same CPU
> disabled local bhs via local_bh_disable(), then we 'miss' the execution of
> the softirq, until the next IRQ. (or next direct call to do_softirq()).

Hooray, some sanity in this thread finally :-)

Yes, this makes perfect sense, this is indeed what can happen.

> the attached softirq-2.4.5-B0 patch fixes this problem by calling
> do_softirq() from local_bh_enable() [if the bh count is 0, to avoid
> recursion].

Yikes! I do not like this fix.

I'd rather local_bh_enable() not become a more heavy primitive.

I know, in one respect it makes sense because it parallels how
hardware interrupts work, but not this thing is a function call
instead of a counter bump :-(

Any other ideas how to zap this?

David S. Miller

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:54    [W:0.056 / U:1.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site