From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello!
>
> > + if (softirq_active(smp_processor_id()) &
softirq_mask(smp_processor_id())) {
> > + do_softirq();
> > + return 0;
>
> BTW you may delete do_softirq()... schedule() will call this.
>
But with a huge overhead. I'd prefer to call it directly from within the
idle functions, the overhead of schedule is IMHO too high.
>
> > + *
> > + * Isn't this identical to default_idle with the 'no-hlt' boot
> > + * option? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Seeems, it is not. need_resched=-1 avoids useless IPIs.
>
I already wondered why need_resched is set to -1 ;-)
I'll remove that comment and repost the patch.
--
Manfred
-
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/
- Re: Serial port latency Manfred Spraul
- Re: Serial port latency Pavel Machek
- Re: Serial port latency Manfred Spraul
- Re: Serial port latency Pavel Machek
- Re: Serial port latency Manfred Spraul
- softirq buggy [Re: Serial port latency] Pavel Machek
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial port... Manfred Spraul
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial ... Pavel Machek
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial ... Manfred Spraul
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial ... kuznet
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial ... Manfred Spraul
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial ... kuznet
- Re: softirq buggy [Re: Serial ... Manfred Spraul
- [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy Manfred Spraul
- Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy Albert D. Cahalan
- Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy Manfred Spraul
- Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy kuznet
- Re: [PATCH] Re: softirq buggy Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: Serial port latency Andrea Arcangeli

