Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:31:06 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10. |
| |
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
some comment after reading your softirq-2.4.10-A7.
> - softirq handling can now be restarted N times within do_softirq(), if a > softirq gets reactivated while it's being handled.
is this really necessary after introducing the unwakeup logic? What do you get if you allow at max 1 softirq pass as before?
> - '[ksoftirqd_CPU0]' is confusing on UP systems, changed it to > '[ksoftirqd]' instead.
"confusing" for you maybe, not for me, but I don't care about this one anyways :).
> - simplified ksoftirqd()'s loop, it's both shorter and faster by a few > instructions now.
only detail: ksoftirqd can show up as sleeping from /proc while it's runnable but I don't think it's a problem and saving the state clobbering is probably more sensible.
no other obvious issue, except I preferred to wait each ksoftirqd to startup succesfully to be strictier and I'd also put an assert after the schedule() to verify ksoftirqd is running in the right cpu.
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/
|  |