On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 09:08:51PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i took at look at your ksoftirq stuff yesterday, and i think it's > completely unnecessery and adds serious overhead to softirq handling. The > whole point of softirqs is to have maximum scalability and no > serialization. Why did you add ksoftirqd, would you mind explaining it? The only case ksoftirqd runs is when the stock kernel does the wrong thing and potentially delays the softirq of 1/HZ. Nothing else. When current kernel does the right thing ksoftirq cannot generate any scalability problem and furthmore ksoftirqd is a per-cpu thing so if you face a scalability problem with it that simply means you need to fix the scheduler because then it means you would face a scalability issue as well every time a tux thread calls schedule(). 90% of the time ksoftirqd will never run, when it runs it means you want to pay for a scheduler run to get it running. The price of the scheduler is just the price for the logic that balance the softirq load in a fair manner and without buggy latencies. Andrea - 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/
