From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266879AbUGVShC (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:37:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266883AbUGVShC (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:37:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:56284 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266879AbUGVSg7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:36:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:38:13 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Rudo Thomas Subject: Re: voluntary-preempt I0: sluggish feel Message-ID: <20040722183813.GA1719@elte.hu> References: <20040721210051.GA2744@yoda.timesys> <20040721211826.GB30871@elte.hu> <20040721223749.GA2863@yoda.timesys> <20040722100657.GA14909@elte.hu> <20040722160055.GA4837@ss1000.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20040722161941.GA23972@elte.hu> <20040722172428.GA5632@ss1000.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20040722175457.GA5855@ss1000.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20040722180142.GC30059@elte.hu> <20040722183218.GA5907@ss1000.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040722183218.GA5907@ss1000.ms.mff.cuni.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rudo Thomas wrote: > I would like to ask whether I should do this. Or is it just the other > way round - renicing the ksoftirqd thread "kills" the effect of > deferred processing? it is perfectly fine to renice ksoftirqd. Are you running xmms under RT priority? If yes then it will always preempt ksoftirqd. Ingo