Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets

• Next message: Ragnar Kjørstad: "Re: Failover in NFS"
• Previous message: Jeff Dike: "[PATCH] UML documentation updates"
• In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
• Next in thread: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
• Reply: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> > I wrote that part of smptimers to run the per-CPU lists from per-CPU
> > tasklets while porting Ingo's code to 2.5 and Ingo just included it. At
> > that time, it didn't seem necessary to use up a softirq vector when it
> > could be easily done using tasklets.
>
> i think a separate timer softirq is justified, timers are important
> enough.
>
> Ingo
>
So then, is there any reason to not put them ahead of
HI_SOFTIRQ? I.e.:

 enum
 {
        TIMER_SOFTIRQ=0,
              HI_SOFTIRQ
        NET_TX_SOFTIRQ,
        NET_RX_SOFTIRQ,
        SCSI_SOFTIRQ,

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
-
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/

• Next message: Ragnar Kjørstad: "Re: Failover in NFS"
• Previous message: Jeff Dike: "[PATCH] UML documentation updates"
• In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
• Next in thread: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
• Reply: Matthew Wilcox: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:25 EST