* Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW:
>
> My work on this has been mostly in the context of a 2.6 kernel based
> generalization of a softIRQ as thread patch for 2.4 that enables
> priority tuning of the bottom half processing as well as /proc support
> for turning on and off the feat
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 00:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As I mentioned earlier, what would it take to be able to group
> > > softirq threads that should not preempt each other, but still keep
> > > preemption available for other threads?
> >
> > It would o
* Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I mentioned earlier, what would it take to be able to group
> > softirq threads that should not preempt each other, but still keep
> > preemption available for other threads?
>
> It would only take the creationt of multiple softIRQd threads per CPU.
On Thursday 17 February 2005 06:57, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > as long as it stays on a single CPU, could we allow softirq contexts to
> > preempt each other? I.e. we'd keep the per-CPU assumption (that is fair
> > and needed for performance anyway), but we'
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:softne
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> as long as it stays on a single CPU, could we allow softirq contexts to
> preempt each other? I.e. we'd keep the per-CPU assumption (that is fair
> and needed for performance anyway), but we'd allow NET_TX to preempt
> NET_RX and vice versa. Would this cor
* 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
* David S. Miller <[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
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)
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, 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
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.
O
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
* Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm attempting to change the softIRQ preemption implementation to use
> work queues (one per softIRQ), that allow for runtime priority changes
> on a per-soft IRQ bases. To do this I was trying to have
> raise_softirq call queu_work directly. queue_work
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:41, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 14 February 2005 13:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:40 -0800, Mark Gross wrote:
> > > > I'm working on a tweak to the preepmtive soft IRQ implementation
> > > > usi
* Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2005 13:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:40 -0800, Mark Gross wrote:
> > > I'm working on a tweak to the preepmtive soft IRQ implementation using
> > > work queues and I'm having problems with a BUG assert when
On Monday 14 February 2005 13:24, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:40 -0800, Mark Gross wrote:
> > I'm working on a tweak to the preepmtive soft IRQ implementation using
> > work queues and I'm having problems with a BUG assert when trying to
> > queue_work.
> >
> > Souldn't I be ab
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:40 -0800, Mark Gross wrote:
> I'm working on a tweak to the preepmtive soft IRQ implementation using work
> queues and I'm having problems with a BUG assert when trying to queue_work.
>
> Souldn't I be able to call queue_work form ISR context?
Yes, but not with interrupt
I'm working on a tweak to the preepmtive soft IRQ implementation using work
queues and I'm having problems with a BUG assert when trying to queue_work.
Souldn't I be able to call queue_work form ISR context?
--mgross
---
| preempt count: 0001 ]
| 1-level deep critic
18 matches
Mail list logo
