* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - tasklets have certain fairness limitations. (they are executed in
> > softirq context and thus preempt everything, even if there is
> > some potentially more important, high-priority task waiting to be
> > executed.)
>
> Since -rt has been executing tasklets in process context for a long
> time, I'm not sure this change would cause to many regressions.
> However, it seems like implicit dependencies on "tasklets preempt
> everything" might crop up. The other issue is if they don't "preempt
> everything" (most of the time), what default priority do we give them
> (all of the time)? [...]
there is no such guarantee at all (of 'instant preemption'), even with
current, softirq-based tasklets. A tasklet might be 'stolen' by another
CPU. It might be delayed to the next timer tick (or other softirq
execution). Or it might be delayed into a ksoftirqd context, which
currently runs at nice +19. So your worry of implicit execution
dependencies is unfounded, because, if they existed, they would be bad
(and triggerable) bugs today too.
Ingo
-
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]
