Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:01:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
       Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 2.6.15-rc5-hrt2 - hrtimers based high resolution
 patches
In-Reply-To: <1134568867.4275.7.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512140857150.30887@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
References: <1134385343.4205.72.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> 
 <1134507927.18921.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>  <20051214084019.GA18708@elte.hu>
  <20051214084333.GA20284@elte.hu>  <1134568080.18921.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <1134568867.4275.7.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 837
Lines: 24


On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> >
> > So the fix to this, in the case of preempting the softirq, that we need
> > to introduce some wait queue that will allow processes to wait for the
> > softirq to finish, and then the softirq will wake up all the processes.
>
> We had the waitqueue in the ktimer based -rt patches and did not add it
> back.
>

Actually, to save on the memory, I was thinking of a general purpose wait
queue, that is either one for all softirqs, or one for each particular
softirq,  that the softirq handler would wakeup when finished.

Thoughts?

-- Steve
-
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/