From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: 3.14.23-rt20 - softirq: resurrect softirq threads Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:05:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20150217130553.GL26177@linutronix.de> References: <20141031170326.1491a63f@gandalf.local.home> <1414910967.5380.81.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1414913507.5380.117.camel@marge.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Steven Rostedt , LKML , linux-rt-users , Thomas Gleixner , Carsten Emde , John Kacur , Clark Williams To: Mike Galbraith Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:43670 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932943AbbBQNF4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:05:56 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1414913507.5380.117.camel@marge.simpson.net> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Mike Galbraith | 2014-11-02 08:31:47 [+0100]: >(sirqs suck, this makes them suck less for some boxen/loads) > >Subject: softirq: resurrect softirq threads >From: Mike Galbraith >Date: Mon Jan 6 08:42:11 CET 2014 > >Some loads cannot tolerate the jitter induced by all softirqs being processed >at the same priority. Let the user prioritize them again. > >Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith I'm going to postpone this. While it might make sense in general I'm going to wait for tglx, Steven and others to see if this is what we want or if there are some plans redoing the softirq handling. Sebastian