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

[Con Kolivas]

On Friday 02 March 2007 00:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.

Gotcha. I'll prepare a smt-nice removal patch shortly. 

-- 
-ck
-
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/