From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:14:36 +0100 (CET)
> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Peter Hurley wrote: >> Or flipping your argument on its head, why not just _always_ execute >> softirq in ksoftirqd? > > Which is what that change effectivley does. And that makes a lot of sense, > because you get the softirq load under scheduler control and do not let the > softirq run as a context stealing entity which is completely uncontrollable by > the scheduler. +1
