lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You wouldn't need to do this to break out of interrupt context
    >>softirqs because you wouldn't bother returning to it. Just hand the
    >>work off to ksoftirqd.
    >
    >
    > this is plainly not the case. Look at eg. the net_tx_action() lock-break
    > i did in the -I1 patch. There we first create a private queue which we
    > work down. With my approach we can freely reschedule _within the loop_.
    > With your suggestion this is not possible.
    >

    Sorry I missed that. Yeah if you are seeing high latencies *within*
    a single softirq then my thing obviously wouldn't work.

    If they're as high as a couple of ms on your 2GHz machine, then they
    definitely shouldn't be processed in the interrupt path, so yeah
    doing them in process context is the best thing to do.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:9.232 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site