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

From: Matthew Wilcox (willy@debian.org)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 17:34:45 EST

Next message: mbm@mort.demon.co.uk: "Re: 2.5.48: BUG() at kernel/module.c:1000"
Previous message: Jan Niehusmann: "Re: Failover in NFS"
In reply to: george anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] Run timers as softirqs, not tasklets"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:29:10PM -0800, george anzinger wrote:
> 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,

because then there would be no way to make a tasklet run before the timers?
turn it around. convince us that timers should run first.

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
-
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: mbm@mort.demon.co.uk: "Re: 2.5.48: BUG() at kernel/module.c:1000"
Previous message: Jan Niehusmann: "Re: Failover in NFS"
In reply to: george anzinger: "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