On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 02:56:58PM +0200, Roger Larsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a new kid on the block since we started thinking of a preemptive
> kernel.
>
> ksoftirqd...
>
> Running with nice 19 (shouldn't it really be -19?)
> Or have a RT setting? (maybe not since one of the reasons for
> softirqd would be lost - would be scheduled in immediately)
> Can't a high prio or RT process be starved due to missing
> service (bh) after an interrupt?
It cannot be starved, if ksoftirqd is never scheduled the do_softirq()
will be run by the next timer irq or apic_timer irq.
> This will not show up in latency profiling patches since
> the kernel does what is requested...
>
> Previously it was run directly after interrupt,
> before returning to the interrupted process...
It is still the case, that's also the common case actually.
Andrea
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 23 2001 - 21:00:48 EST