Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764013AbXF2McN (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:32:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932389AbXF2Maf (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:30:35 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43213 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932376AbXF2Mad (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:30:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:29:06 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexey Kuznetsov Cc: Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Steven Rostedt , LKML , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Hellwig , john stultz , Oleg Nesterov , "Paul E. McKenney" , Dipankar Sarma , "David S. Miller" , matthew.wilcox@hp.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Convert all tasklets to workqueues Message-ID: <20070629122906.GA13035@elte.hu> References: <20070622040014.234651401@goodmis.org> <20070622204058.GA11777@elte.hu> <20070622215953.GA22917@elte.hu> <46834BB8.1020007@garzik.org> <20070628092340.GB23566@elte.hu> <20070628143850.GA11780@ms2.inr.ac.ru> <20070628160001.GA15495@elte.hu> <20070629113423.GA9042@ms2.inr.ac.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070629113423.GA9042@ms2.inr.ac.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1864 Lines: 43 * Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > also, the "be afraid of the hardirq or the process context" mantra > > is overblown as well. If something is too heavy for a hardirq, _it's > > too heavy for a tasklet too_. Most hardirqs are (or should be) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > running with interrupts enabled, which makes their difference to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > softirqs miniscule. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Incorrect. > > The difference between softirqs and hardirqs lays not in their > "heavyness". It is in reentrancy protection, which has to be done with > local_irq_disable(), unless networking is not isolated from hardirqs. i know that pretty well ;) > That's all. Networking is too hairy to allow to be executed with > disabled hardirqs. And moving this hairyiness to process context > requires a little more efforts than conversion > tasklets to work queues. as i said above (see the underlined sentence), hardirq contexts already run just fine with hardirqs enabled. So your dismissal of executing that 'hairy' bit in hardirq context is not that automatically true as you seem to assume i think. also, network softirq locking dependencies arent all that magic or complex either: they do not operate on sockets that are already locked by a user context, they are per CPU and they are not preempted by 'themselves', nor are they preempted by certain other softirqs (such as they are not preempted by the timer softirq). Am i missing some point of yours? 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/