From: Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingo,
I think this was sent before, and it did cause problems before. Would
there be *any* reason to have non-threaded softirqs but threaded hardirqs.
I can see lots of issues with that.
This patch has selecting hardirqs also select softirqs as threads.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/Kconfig.preempt | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Index: linux-2.6.22/kernel/Kconfig.preempt
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22.orig/kernel/Kconfig.preempt 2007-07-26 14:59:11.000000000
+0000
+++ linux-2.6.22/kernel/Kconfig.preempt 2007-07-26 14:59:48.000000000 +0000
@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ config PREEMPT_HARDIRQS
bool "Thread Hardirqs"
default n
depends on !GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
+ select PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS
help
This option reduces the latency of the kernel by 'threading'
hardirqs. This means that all (or selected) hardirqs will run
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
