Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:43:02 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |