Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:32:44 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10. |
| |
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 08:18:20PM +0400, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > Hello! > > > - removed 'mask' handling from do_softirq() - it's unnecessery due to the > > restarts. this further simplifies the code. > > Ingo, but this means that only the first softirq is handled. > "mask" implements round-robin and this is necessary.
he's allowing to repeat the loop more than once to hide it, to do the "mask" with repetition correctly we'd need a per-softirq counter, not just a bitmask so it wouldn't be handy to allocate on the stack, but it's nothing unfixable.
However I also preferred the previous behaviour, I think it was much nicer for general purpose (non specweb99 gigabit like scenarios).
> > - '[ksoftirqd_CPU0]' is confusing on UP systems, changed it to > > '[ksoftirqd]' instead. > > It is useless to argue about preferences, but universal naming scheme > looks as less confusing yet. :-)
Agreed.
> Generally, I dislike this patch. It is utterly ugly.
I also dislike it overall but I can see why it improves performance, and the deschedule thing makes sense for the flooding case.
I would be very confortable in only merging the deschedule part and this is why I asked Ingo if he could measure the difference.
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/
|  |