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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [...] Even though I'm finding myself defending code that has already 
> been softly tagged for redundancy, let's be clear here; we're talking 
> about at most a further 70ms delay in scheduling a niced task in the 
> presence of a nice 0 task, which is a reasonable delay for ksoftirqd 
> which we nice the eyeballs out of in mainline. Considering under load 
> our scheduler has been known to cause scheduling delays of 10 seconds 
> I still don't see this as a bug. Dynticks just "points it out to us".

well, not running softirqs when we could is a bug. It's not a big bug, 
but it's a bug nevertheless. It doesnt matter that softirqs could be 
delayed even worse under high load - there was no 'high load' here.

	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/