Re: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental)

Paul E. McKenney
2004-03-25T00:48:48Z

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > If the "nice" value does not matter, this seems reasonable, at least for
> > some value of 10. ;-)
>
> the nice value should no matter for this.

I agree that there would not likely be any differences except in
corner-case OOM situations, and that we would probably not want
to rely on such differences in any case.

> btw, (just to avoid misunderstanding) the number 10 is
> MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART.

Ah! Thank you for the clarification -- I thought you were
talking about the number of RCU callbacks to be executed in each
rcu_do_batch() invocation. And, yes, after MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART,
ksoftirqd does re-enable preemption.

Thanx, Paul