On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 19:12 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Another complicated design would be to make a task for each priority.
> >> Then the interrupt wakes the highest priority one, which handles the first
> >> callback and awakes the next one etc.
> >
> > Don't think that is necessary.
>
> Me neither :-) Running sofhtirq-hrt at priority 99 - or whatever is
> set by chrt - should be sufficient.
It is not, that was the reason, why we implemted it. You get arbitrary
latencies caused by timer storms.
I have to check, whether the priority is propagated when the softirq is
blocked on a lock. If not its a bug and has to be fixed.
tglx
-
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]
