On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:43:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What aspects of it do you find unnecessary? The second thread is > > needed to maintain the current high/low priority semantics (without > > that, you'll either starve regular tasks with a lot of softirqs, or > > starve softirqs with a busy userspace, depending on how you set the > > priority of the softirq thread). > > what high/low semantics do you mean, other than the ordering of softirq > sources? (which is currently implemented via the __do_softirq() loop > first looking at the highest prio softirq.) So splitting up ksoftirqd > into two pieces seems like a separate issue.
I meant the current split between immediate-context softirqs (which are repesented in the patch by the high-priority ksoftirqd) and the low-priority thread which is used to avoid starvation while allowing softirqs to continue running if the system's otherwise more or less idle. > > BTW, it was my patch; Yarroll only submitted it to the list (as he > > stated at the time). > > ok - sorry about the misattribution! It's OK; I just don't want him to be blamed for my bugs. :-) -Scott
