lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What do you think about deferring softirqs just while in critical
    >>sections?
    >>
    >>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
    adding
    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 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 14:04    [W:0.020 / U:30.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site