Re: queue_work from interrupt Real time preemption2.6.11-rc2-RT-V0.7.37-03

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

Damn! I'm doing this from out of town and my pine setup had a reply to to
another email account, and I didn't read this before I sent my previous
response (so Please ignore it!)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > > See net/core/dev.c:softnet_data
> >
> > How about a design to put softirq's into domains. [...]
>
> just to make sure that the context of this discussion is not lost to
> David and other readers of lkml. We are not redesigning softirqs in any
> way, shape or form for the normal kernel - there they remain what they
> are.
>
> This discussion is about seemless (automatic) extensions/modifications
> to the softirq concept on PREEMPT_RT, for latency reduction purposes.
> PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS is already such an extension.
>

I'm only working on your PREEMPT_RT extension, so I wasn't thinking about
the mainline kernel.

But I'll ask again from this context. What is the plan for softirqs on the
PREEMPT_RT kernel? Are you going to thread them? Otherwise, what other way
can you preempt different softirqs?

I understand that the design of softirqs will not change for the mainline
kernel, but what changes are going to be made wrt PREEMPT_RT? If they are
going to be threaded, then grouping them would not be too much of a
problem with simple #ifdefs around the code and keep the mainline
untouched.

I may be just confused, so please enlighten me :-)

Thanks,

-- Steve