Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:57:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
Cc: rostedt@kihontech.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
       "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com
Subject: Re: queue_work from interrupt Real time preemption2.6.11-rc2-RT-V0.7.37-03
Message-ID: <20050329085734.GA7074@elte.hu>
References: <200502141240.14355.mgross@linux.intel.com> <20050217075212.GA21621@elte.hu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502170944500.14536@localhost.localdomain> <200502170814.42903.mgross@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200502170814.42903.mgross@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 856
Lines: 21


* Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> 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.  
> Just keep net_rx and net_tx in the same work queue.

we could work around the net_rx/net_tx assumptions by moving them to the 
same softirq thread - but i'm a bit uneasy about the whole concept: e.g.  
how about SCSI softirq processing and timer softirq processing, can they 
preempt each other?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/