On Thu, Feb 07 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > on the more conceptual level, shouldnt we just move to threads > > > instead of softirqs? That way you can become affine to any CPU and > > > can do cross-CPU wakeups anytime - which will be nice and fast via > > > the smp_reschedule_interrupt() facility. > > > > That would indeed be nicer and not require any arch changes. I was > > afraid it would be more costly than massaging the softirqs a bit > > though, perhaps that is unfounded. > > pick up the threaded softirq patches from -rt, those move all softirqs > processing into kernel threads. I'd suggest to extend those via > wakeup-from-remote functionality - it fits the construct quite > naturally. You should also be able to directly observe any performance > impact of threaded softirq handlers. (and if you find any, let me know > so that we can make it faster :-)
I was just considering that, since I knew -rt moved the softirqs into threads. I'll look into it, but may not post anything until after my vacation. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/
