Damn! I'm doing this from out of town and my pine setup had a reply to to another email account, and I didn't read this before I sent my previous response (so Please ignore it!)
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > See net/core/dev.c:softnet_data > > > > How about a design to put softirq's into domains. [...] > > just to make sure that the context of this discussion is not lost to > David and other readers of lkml. We are not redesigning softirqs in any > way, shape or form for the normal kernel - there they remain what they > are. > > This discussion is about seemless (automatic) extensions/modifications > to the softirq concept on PREEMPT_RT, for latency reduction purposes. > PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS is already such an extension. > I'm only working on your PREEMPT_RT extension, so I wasn't thinking about the mainline kernel. But I'll ask again from this context. What is the plan for softirqs on the PREEMPT_RT kernel? Are you going to thread them? Otherwise, what other way can you preempt different softirqs? I understand that the design of softirqs will not change for the mainline kernel, but what changes are going to be made wrt PREEMPT_RT? If they are going to be threaded, then grouping them would not be too much of a problem with simple #ifdefs around the code and keep the mainline untouched. I may be just confused, so please enlighten me :-) Thanks, -- Steve - 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/
