Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch

[Ingo Molnar]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You wouldn't need to do this to break out of interrupt context
> softirqs because you wouldn't bother returning to it. Just hand the
> work off to ksoftirqd.

this is plainly not the case. Look at eg. the net_tx_action() lock-break
i did in the -I1 patch. There we first create a private queue which we
work down. With my approach we can freely reschedule _within the loop_.
With your suggestion this is not possible.

i.e. executing a softirq in a process context gives us all the
advantages of a process context: all the local state is saved and
preserved until the preemption is done. These advantages are not there
for either immediate or idle-task-only-immediate type of softirq
processing.

	Ingo
-
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/