* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Even though I'm finding myself defending code that has already
> been softly tagged for redundancy, let's be clear here; we're talking
> about at most a further 70ms delay in scheduling a niced task in the
> presence of a nice 0 task, which is a reasonable delay for ksoftirqd
> which we nice the eyeballs out of in mainline. Considering under load
> our scheduler has been known to cause scheduling delays of 10 seconds
> I still don't see this as a bug. Dynticks just "points it out to us".
well, not running softirqs when we could is a bug. It's not a big bug,
but it's a bug nevertheless. It doesnt matter that softirqs could be
delayed even worse under high load - there was no 'high load' here.
Ingo
-
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/
