From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: question about softirqs
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905132252570.3561@localhost.localdomain>
References: <874ovpmmdq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4A0AC9EC.6070908@nortel.com> <20090513141532.GT19296@one.firstfloor.org> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0905131612180.3561@localhost.localdomain> <87my9hkrmw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4A0AE19D.9040509@nortel.com>
 <20090513170122.GZ19296@one.firstfloor.org> <4A0B19A9.1090206@nortel.com> <20090513191354.GB19296@one.firstfloor.org> <4A0B233B.8010105@nortel.com> <20090513195340.GC19296@one.firstfloor.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	paulus@samba.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:56189 "EHLO www.tglx.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1761532AbZEMU4R (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 May 2009 16:56:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20090513195340.GC19296@one.firstfloor.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 13 May 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 01:44:59PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 01:04:09PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > >> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> network packets are normally processed by the network packet interrupt's
> > >>> softirq or alternatively in the NAPI poll loop.
> > >> If we have a high priority task, ksoftirqd may not get a chance to run.
> > > 
> > > In this case the next interrupt will also process them. It will just
> > > go more slowly because interrupts limit the work compared to ksoftirqd.
> > 
> > I realize that they will eventually get processed.  My point is that the
> > documentation (in-kernel, online, and in various books) says that
> > softirqs will be processed _on the return from a syscall_. 
> 
> They are. The documentation is correct. 

No, the documentation is wrong for the case that the task, which
raised the softirq and therefor woke up ksoftirqd, has a higher
priority than ksoftirqd. In that case the kernel does _NOT_ schedule
ksoftirqd in the return from syscall path.

And that's all what Chris is pointing out.

Thanks,

	tglx