Re: RCU question

[George Anzinger]

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 02:10 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:42:55AM -0800, George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> > > Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > >
> > > > And yes, RCU processing in softirq context can re-raise the softirq.
> > > > AFAICS, it is perfectly normal.
> > >
> > > My assumption was that, this being the idle task, RCU would be more than 
> > > happy to finish all its pending tasks.
> >
> > We try to avoid really long running softirqs (RCU tasklet in this case)
> > for better scheduling latency. A long running rcu tasklet during
> > an idle cpu may delay running of an RT process that becomes runnable
> > during the rcu tasklet.
>
>
> Well, softirqs should really be preemptible if you care about RT task
> latency.  Ingo's patches have had this for months.  Works great.  Maybe
> it's time to push it upstream.

Yes, I understand, and soft_irq() does turn on interrupts...
I was thinking of something like:

	while(softirq_pending()) {
		local_irq_enable();
		do_softirq();
		local_irq_disable();
	}
	
	<proceed to idle hlt...>
--
George Anzinger   george@xxxxxxxxxx
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/

-
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/