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

[Nick Piggin]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.

Sorry I missed that. Yeah if you are seeing high latencies *within*
a single softirq then my thing obviously wouldn't work.

If they're as high as a couple of ms on your 2GHz machine, then they
definitely shouldn't be processed in the interrupt path, so yeah
doing them in process context is the best thing to do.
-
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/