Messages in this thread | | | From | kuznet@ms2 ... | Subject | Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial port latency] | Date | Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:58:35 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| |
Hello!
> But with a huge overhead. I'd prefer to call it directly from within the > idle functions, the overhead of schedule is IMHO too high.
+ if (current->need_resched) { + return 0; ^^^^^^^^ + } + if (softirq_active(smp_processor_id()) & softirq_mask(smp_processor_id())) { + do_softirq(); + return 0; ^^^^^^^^^ You return one value in both casesand I decided it means "schedule". 8) Apparently you meaned return 1 in the first case. 8)
But in this case it becomes wrong. do_softirq() can raise need_reshed and moreover irqs arrive during it. Order of check should be different.
BTW what's about overhead... I suspect it is _lower_ in the case of schedule(). In the case of networking at least, when softirq most likely wakes some socket.
Alexey - 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/
| |