Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:32:35 -0400 | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch | From | Scott Wood <> |
| |
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:43:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Scott Wood <scott@timesys.com> wrote: > > 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.
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.
> > BTW, it was my patch; Yarroll only submitted it to the list (as he > > stated at the time). > > ok - sorry about the misattribution!
It's OK; I just don't want him to be blamed for my bugs. :-)
-Scott - 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/
| |