Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch

Nick Piggin
2004-07-23T07:28:36Z

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>You wouldn't need to do this to break out of interrupt context
>>softirqs because you wouldn't bother returning to it. Just hand the
>>work off to ksoftirqd.
>
>
> this is plainly not the case. Look at eg. the net_tx_action() lock-break
> i did in the -I1 patch. There we first create a private queue which we
> work down. With my approach we can freely reschedule _within the loop_.
> With your suggestion this is not possible.
>

Sorry I missed that. Yeah if you are seeing high latencies *within*
a single softirq then my thing obviously wouldn't work.

If they're as high as a couple of ms on your 2GHz machine, then they
definitely shouldn't be processed in the interrupt path, so yeah
doing them in process context is the best thing to do.