Re: 2.6.21-rc1: known regressions (v2) (part 2)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 22:13 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > if then there should be a mechanism /in the hardware/ to set the
> > priority of a CPU - and then the hardware could decide how to prioritize
> > between siblings. Doing this in software is really hard.
> 
> And that's the depressing part because of course I was interested in that as 
> the original approach to the problem (and it was a big problem). When I spoke 
> to Intel and AMD (of course to date no SMT AMD chip exists) at kernel summit 
> they said it was too hard to implement hardware priorities well. Which is 
> real odd since IBM have already done it with Power...
> 
> Still I think it has been working fine in software till now, but now it has to 
> deal with the added confusion of dynticks, so I already know what will happen 
> to it.

Well, it's not a dyntick problem in the first place. Even w/o dynticks
we go idle with local_softirq_pending(). Dynticks contains an explicit
check for that, which makes it visible.

	tglx


	

-
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/