Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * K.R. Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> i have released the v2.6.20-rt1 kernel, which can be downloaded from the
>>> usual place:
>>>
>> I have a couple of questions regarding priorities of the softirqs, IRQ
>> handlers, etc.
>>
>> With some exceptions, back in 2.6.18 and prior patches the IRQ threads
>> were prioritized between 50 and 25 and the most of the softirqs were
>> prioritized at 1? In newer patches it looks like they are all
>> prioritized at 50?
>>
>> I was just curious what went into making these choices? I am just
>> trying to better understand these decisions.
>
> The basically random order-of-request_irq() prioritization was causing
> problems (it worked for some but didnt work for others), so i got rid of
> trying to auto-guess some priority order. Also, now that we've got
> tools/scripts like set_kthread_prio and rtprio it seemed more consistent
> to just not attempt to prioritize interrupts and softirqs at all, but to
> keep them all 'in the middle' of the RT priority range.
>
> Ingo
>
Thanks.
--
kr
-
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/
