Andi Kleen wrote: > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> writes: >>Err, no. Chris is completely correct: >> >> if (!in_interrupt()) >> wakeup_softirqd(); > > Yes you have to wake it up just in case, but it doesn't normally > process the data because a normal softirq comes in faster. It's > just a safety policy.
What about the scenario I raised earlier, where we have incoming network packets, no hardware interrupts coming in other than the timer tick, and a high-priority userspace app is spinning on recvmsg() with MSG_DONTWAIT set? As far as I can tell, in this scenario softirqs may not get processed on return from a syscall (contradicting the documentation). In the worst case, they may not get processed until the next timer tick. Chris _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
