lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental)
    On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > If the "nice" value does not matter, this seems reasonable, at least for
    > > some value of 10. ;-)
    >
    > the nice value should no matter for this.

    I agree that there would not likely be any differences except in
    corner-case OOM situations, and that we would probably not want
    to rely on such differences in any case.

    > btw, (just to avoid misunderstanding) the number 10 is
    > MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART.

    Ah! Thank you for the clarification -- I thought you were
    talking about the number of RCU callbacks to be executed in each
    rcu_do_batch() invocation. And, yes, after MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART,
    ksoftirqd does re-enable preemption.

    Thanx, Paul
    -
    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: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.022 / U:6.208 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site