Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10.

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

some comment after reading your softirq-2.4.10-A7.

>  - softirq handling can now be restarted N times within do_softirq(), if a
>    softirq gets reactivated while it's being handled.

is this really necessary after introducing the unwakeup logic? What do
you get if you allow at max 1 softirq pass as before?

>  - '[ksoftirqd_CPU0]' is confusing on UP systems, changed it to
>    '[ksoftirqd]' instead.

"confusing" for you maybe, not for me, but I don't care about this one
anyways :).

>  - simplified ksoftirqd()'s loop, it's both shorter and faster by a few
>    instructions now.

only detail: ksoftirqd can show up as sleeping from /proc while it's
runnable but I don't think it's a problem and saving the state
clobbering is probably more sensible.

no other obvious issue, except I preferred to wait each ksoftirqd to
startup succesfully to be strictier and I'd also put an assert after
the schedule() to verify ksoftirqd is running in the right cpu.

Andrea