Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:02:07 -0800 | From | George Anzinger <> | Subject | Re: RCU question |
| |
Lee Revell wrote: > On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 02:10 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > >>On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:42:55AM -0800, George Anzinger wrote: >> >>>Dipankar Sarma wrote: >>> >>>>And yes, RCU processing in softirq context can re-raise the softirq. >>>>AFAICS, it is perfectly normal. >>> >>>My assumption was that, this being the idle task, RCU would be more than >>>happy to finish all its pending tasks. >> >>We try to avoid really long running softirqs (RCU tasklet in this case) >>for better scheduling latency. A long running rcu tasklet during >>an idle cpu may delay running of an RT process that becomes runnable >>during the rcu tasklet. >> > > > Well, softirqs should really be preemptible if you care about RT task > latency. Ingo's patches have had this for months. Works great. Maybe > it's time to push it upstream.
Yes, I understand, and soft_irq() does turn on interrupts... I was thinking of something like:
while(softirq_pending()) { local_irq_enable(); do_softirq(); local_irq_disable(); } <proceed to idle hlt...> -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
- 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/
| |