From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:21:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:21:17 -0400 Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.16]:7577 "EHLO mailout00.sul.t-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:21:04 -0400 Date: 30 Sep 2001 11:37:00 +0200 From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: mingo@elte.hu Message-ID: <89pdkdu1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> In-Reply-To: <200109291635.UAA17377@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10. X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh7 R/C435 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding? In-Reply-To: <200109291635.UAA17377@ms2.inr.ac.ru> X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail. X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote on 29.09.01 in <200109291635.UAA17377@ms2.inr.ac.ru>: > Essentially, if we invent some real condition when softirq loop must be > stopped, we win. Now it is "stop after all events pending at start are > processed". OK, it is wrong. You propose: "10 rounds". It is even worse > because it is against plain logic. (pardon :-)). The way I understand from this thread, the condition is *not* "10 rounds", it is "no more new softirqs are pending when we want to leave" - except it does a sort of emergency abort if 10 rounds weren't enough to get to that condition. MfG Kai