Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10.

From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru
Date: Fri Sep 28 2001 - 11:18:20 EST

Hello!

> - removed 'mask' handling from do_softirq() - it's unnecessery due to the
> restarts. this further simplifies the code.

Ingo, but this means that only the first softirq is handled.
"mask" implements round-robin and this is necessary.

> - '[ksoftirqd_CPU0]' is confusing on UP systems, changed it to
> '[ksoftirqd]' instead.

It is useless to argue about preferences, but universal naming scheme
looks as less confusing yet. :-)

Generally, I dislike this patch. It is utterly ugly.

Also, you did not assure me that you interpret problem correctly.
netif_rx() is __insensitive__ to latencies due to blocked softirq restarts.
It stops spinning only when it becomes true cpu hog. And scheduling ksoftirqd
is the only variant here.

Most likely, your problem will disappear when you renice ksoftirqd
to higher priority f.e. equal to priority of tux threads.

Alexey
-
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 30 2001 - 21:01:03 EST