On Tuesday 29 March 2005 00:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mark Gross <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > As I mentioned earlier, what would it take to be able to group
> > > softirq threads that should not preempt each other, but still keep
> > > preemption available for other threads?
> >
> > It would only take the creationt of multiple softIRQd threads per CPU.
> > Just keep net_rx and net_tx in the same work queue.
>
> we could work around the net_rx/net_tx assumptions by moving them to the
> same softirq thread - but i'm a bit uneasy about the whole concept: e.g.
> how about SCSI softirq processing and timer softirq processing, can they
> preempt each other?
>
I think they can.
BTW:
My work on this has been mostly in the context of a 2.6 kernel based
generalization of a softIRQ as thread patch for 2.4 that enables priority
tuning of the bottom half processing as well as /proc support for turning on
and off the feature. We got it to work.
However; I don't know what good workloads and metrics to measure the goodness
of the work look like. If folks think priority tuning of bottom half
processing is worth persuing and can help me quantify its effectiveness
better than running a jitter test while doing a BONNIE test run on a SCSI
JBOD, then I'm happy to do more with this.
--mgross
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
