On Wednesday 16 February 2005 09:59, George Anzinger wrote: > David S. Miller wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:16:45 +0100 > > > > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Maybe the networking > >>stack would break if we allowed the TIMER softirq (thread) to preempt > >>the NET softirq (threads) (and vice versa)? > > > > The major assumption is that softirq's run indivisibly per-cpu. > > Otherwise the per-cpu queues of RX and TX packet work would > > get corrupted.
That's a problem (for my idea). > > For what its worth, I, a short while ago, put together a workqueue package > to a) allow easy priority setting for work queues and b) change either > softirq, tasklet or bh code to use workqueues. This was done mostly with > CPP macros and a few conversion routines. I then converted the network > code to use this package simply by adding a key include to a couple of > files. The result worked on UP but ended up hanging the network code on > SMP. Everything else still worked, but not the net stuff. I never ran > down the problem as the "boss" was not interested in SMP... > Thanks, my implementation doesn't lock up with my unit testing (scp kernel tarballs). However; I did have my scheduling pollocy for the net_tx net_rx and timer set to SCHED_RR using the same priority for each. I'll fiddle with t relative prioites across the different soft IRQ's an see how much smoke I can cause. --mgross - 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/
