[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <> wrote:
>>What do you think about deferring softirqs just while in critical
>>I'm not sure how well this works, and it is CONFIG_PREEMPT only but in
>>theory it should prevent unbounded softirqs while under locks without
>>taking the performance hit of doing the context switch.
> i dont think this is sufficient. A high-prio RT task might be performing
> something that is important to it but isnt in any critical section. This
> includes userspace processing. We dont want to delay it with softirqs.

Given that we're looking for something acceptable for 2.6, how about
if (rt_task(current))
kick ksoftirqd instead

Otherwise, what is the performance penalty of doing all softirq
processing from ksoftirqd?
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 14:04    [W:0.213 / U:22.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site