From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
mgross@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com
Subject: Re: queue_work from interrupt Real time preemption2.6.11-rc2-RT-V0.7.37-03
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:57:33 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502170944500.14536@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050217075212.GA21621@elte.hu>
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> as long as it stays on a single CPU, could we allow softirq contexts to
> preempt each other? I.e. we'd keep the per-CPU assumption (that is fair
> and needed for performance anyway), but we'd allow NET_TX to preempt
> NET_RX and vice versa. Would this corrupt the rx/tx queues? (i suspect
> it would.)
>
> (anyway, by adding an explicit no-preempt section around the 'take
> current rx queue private, then process it' on PREEMPT_RT it could be
> made safe. I'm wondering whether there are any other deeper assumptions
> about atomic separation of softirq contexts.)
>
Ingo,
Wouldn't this cause a longer latency in these sections. I understand
that turning preemption off doesn't stop interrupts that are not
threaded, but especially on a UP, this would cause higher latencies for
high priority processes when a lower priority process is heavy on network
traffic.
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?
Actually, I guess I need to ask, what do you intend on doing to prioritize
the softirq? Are you going to make a separate thread for each tasklet?
Once I see what you're doing, I'll make something up to help handle this
problem.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-17 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-14 20:40 Mark Gross
2005-02-14 21:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-14 22:29 ` Mark Gross
2005-02-15 10:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-15 18:06 ` Mark Gross
2005-02-16 5:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-16 16:11 ` David S. Miller
2005-02-16 17:59 ` George Anzinger
2005-02-16 22:55 ` Mark Gross
2005-02-16 18:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-17 7:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-17 15:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-17 7:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-17 14:57 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2005-02-17 16:14 ` Mark Gross
2005-03-29 8:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-31 18:41 ` Mark Gross
2005-04-01 5:55 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0502170944500.14536@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@kihontech.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®