On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
some comment after reading your softirq-2.4.10-A7.
> - softirq handling can now be restarted N times within do_softirq(), if a
> softirq gets reactivated while it's being handled.
is this really necessary after introducing the unwakeup logic? What do
you get if you allow at max 1 softirq pass as before?
> - '[ksoftirqd_CPU0]' is confusing on UP systems, changed it to
> '[ksoftirqd]' instead.
"confusing" for you maybe, not for me, but I don't care about this one
> - simplified ksoftirqd()'s loop, it's both shorter and faster by a few
> instructions now.
only detail: ksoftirqd can show up as sleeping from /proc while it's
runnable but I don't think it's a problem and saving the state
clobbering is probably more sensible.
no other obvious issue, except I preferred to wait each ksoftirqd to
startup succesfully to be strictier and I'd also put an assert after
the schedule() to verify ksoftirqd is running in the right cpu.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:00:59 EST