From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751438AbZH1VUm (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:20:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751095AbZH1VUl (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:20:41 -0400 Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com ([47.140.192.56]:44569 "EHLO zrtps0kp.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750971AbZH1VUl (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:20:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4A984A05.9080009@nortel.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:20:05 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: Christoph Lameter , raz ben yehuda , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, maximlevitsky@gmail.com, efault@gmx.de, riel@redhat.com, wiseman@macs.biu.ac.il, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: THE OFFLINE SCHEDULER References: <1251282598.3514.20.camel@raz> <1251297910.1791.22.camel@maxim-laptop> <1251298443.4791.7.camel@raz> <1251300625.18584.18.camel@twins> <1251302598.18584.31.camel@twins> <20090826180407.GA13632@elte.hu> <20090826193252.GA14721@elte.hu> <20090826135041.e6169d18.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A95A5EE.90400@nortel.com> <1251322663.3882.48.camel@raz> <4A96B997.1070001@nortel.com> <4A971C18.7050109@nortel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2009 21:20:26.0778 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CB57FA0:01CA2825] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/27/2009 06:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Chris Friesen wrote: >> How would you deal with per-cpu kernel threads (softirqs, etc.) or >> softirq processing while in the kernel? > > If you have pinned an interrupt to that CPU then you need to process > the softirq for it as well. If that's the device your very single user > space thread is talking to then you better want that, if you are not > interested then simply pin that device irq to some other CPU: no irq > -> no softirq. Ah, okay. For some reason I had thought that the incoming work was queued up globally and might be handled by any softirq. Chris