public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: rostedt@kihontech.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com
Subject: Re: queue_work from interrupt Real time preemption2.6.11-rc2-RT-V0.7.37-03
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:41:05 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200503311041.05955.mgross@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050329085734.GA7074@elte.hu>

On Tuesday 29 March 2005 00:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > As I mentioned earlier, what would it take to be able to group
> > > softirq threads that should not preempt each other, but still keep
> > > preemption available for other threads?
> >
> > It would only take the creationt of multiple softIRQd threads per CPU.
> > Just keep net_rx and net_tx in the same work queue.
>
> we could work around the net_rx/net_tx assumptions by moving them to the
> same softirq thread - but i'm a bit uneasy about the whole concept: e.g.
> how about SCSI softirq processing and timer softirq processing, can they
> preempt each other?
>
I think they can.  

BTW:

My work on this has been mostly in the context of a 2.6 kernel based 
generalization of a softIRQ as thread patch for 2.4 that enables priority 
tuning of the bottom half processing as well as /proc support for turning on 
and off the feature.   We got it to work.

However; I don't know what good workloads and metrics to measure the goodness 
of the work look like.  If folks think priority tuning of bottom half 
processing is worth persuing and can help me quantify its effectiveness 
better than running a jitter test while doing a BONNIE test run on a SCSI 
JBOD, then I'm happy to do more with this.

--mgross


  reply	other threads:[~2005-03-31 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-14 20:40 queue_work from interrupt Real time preemption2.6.11-rc2-RT-V0.7.37-03 Mark Gross
2005-02-14 21:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-14 22:29   ` Mark Gross
2005-02-15 10:41     ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-15 18:06       ` Mark Gross
2005-02-16  5:16         ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-16 16:11           ` David S. Miller
2005-02-16 17:59             ` George Anzinger
2005-02-16 22:55               ` Mark Gross
2005-02-16 18:02             ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-17  7:57               ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-17 15:13                 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-17  7:52             ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-17 14:57               ` Steven Rostedt
2005-02-17 16:14                 ` Mark Gross
2005-03-29  8:57                   ` Ingo Molnar
2005-03-31 18:41                     ` Mark Gross [this message]
2005-04-01  5:55                       ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200503311041.05955.mgross@linux.intel.com \
    --to=mgross@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=rostedt@kihontech.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox