23 Jul
2004
23 Jul
'04
4:02 a.m.
* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
look at my latest patches to see how it's done. We can preempt softirq
handlers via lock-break methods. The same method doesnt work in the idle
thread. With this method i've reduced worst-case softirq latencies from
~2-4 msecs to 100-200 usecs on a 2GHz x86 box.
Ingo
this doesnt
work either: once we've committed ourselves to do an
'immediate' softirq processing pass we are risking latencies. We cannot
preempt the idle task while it's processing softirqs the same way we can
do the lock-break if they are always deferred.
It is a preempt off region no matter where it is run. I don't see how
moving it to ksoftirqd can shorten that time any further.