22 Jul
2004
22 Jul
'04
12:47 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:43:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It's OK; I just don't want him to be blamed for my bugs. :-)
-Scott
* Scott Wood <scott(a)timesys.com> wrote:
I meant the current split between immediate-context softirqs (which
are repesented in the patch by the high-priority ksoftirqd) and the
low-priority thread which is used to avoid starvation while allowing
softirqs to continue running if the system's otherwise more or less
idle.
What aspects of it do you find unnecessary? The
second thread is
needed to maintain the current high/low priority semantics (without
that, you'll either starve regular tasks with a lot of softirqs, or
starve softirqs with a busy userspace, depending on how you set the
priority of the softirq thread).
what high/low semantics do you mean, other than the ordering of softirq
sources? (which is currently implemented via the __do_softirq() loop
first looking at the highest prio softirq.) So splitting up ksoftirqd
into two pieces seems like a separate issue. BTW, it was my
patch; Yarroll only submitted it to the list (as he
stated at the time).
ok - sorry about the misattribution!