On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > the context-switch argument i'll believe if i see numbers. You'll > > probably need in excess of tens of thousands of irqs/sec to even be able > > to measure its overhead. (workqueues are driven by nice kernel threads > > so there's no TLB overhead, etc.) > > It was authors of the patch who were supposed to give some numbers, > at least one or two, just to prove the concept. :-)
The problem is that we don't have the hardware that uses tasklets in critical ways. My original patch series had a debug print in every function (tasklet_schedule and friends). I got a few scattered prints on all my boxes but no flooding of prints. So I can't show that this will hurt, because on my boxes it does not. > > You could set realtime prioriry by default, not a poor nice -5. > If some network adapters were killed just because I run some task > with nice --22, it would be just ridiculous. This is my fault to the patch series. I compelety forgot to up the prio. My next series will include a change where the tasklet work queue will run at something like prio FIFO 98 (or maybe 99?) This is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to do this, since I'm a real-time developer ;-) -- Steve - 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/
