Re: Interrupt starvation points

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 09:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i'm wondering what the best approach would be. Right now if
> DIRECT_PREEMPT is enabled [it's disabled currently] and a higher-prio
> task has been woken up we switch to it without ever enabling interrupts
> again. Re-enabling interrupts during schedule() will reduce irq
> latencies but will lengthen critical sections.


	Yeah, it's a trade off .. The longest points that I observed involved
kernel threads like desched . Things that the scheduler() regularly
wakes up anyways. I would imagine there is an upper bound on the number
of tasks the scheduler can wake up.

Daniel

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/