On Friday 02 March 2007 00:30, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] Even though I'm finding myself defending code that has already > > been softly tagged for redundancy, let's be clear here; we're talking > > about at most a further 70ms delay in scheduling a niced task in the > > presence of a nice 0 task, which is a reasonable delay for ksoftirqd > > which we nice the eyeballs out of in mainline. Considering under load > > our scheduler has been known to cause scheduling delays of 10 seconds > > I still don't see this as a bug. Dynticks just "points it out to us". > > well, not running softirqs when we could is a bug. It's not a big bug, > but it's a bug nevertheless. It doesnt matter that softirqs could be > delayed even worse under high load - there was no 'high load' here.
Gotcha. I'll prepare a smt-nice removal patch shortly. -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
