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