Re: [PATCH] RCU for low latency (experimental)

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:02:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > If the "nice" value does not matter, this seems reasonable, at least for
> > some value of 10.  ;-)
> 
> the nice value should no matter for this.

I agree that there would not likely be any differences except in
corner-case OOM situations, and that we would probably not want
to rely on such differences in any case.

> btw, (just to avoid misunderstanding) the number 10 is
> MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART.

Ah!  Thank you for the clarification -- I thought you were
talking about the number of RCU callbacks to be executed in each
rcu_do_batch() invocation.  And, yes, after MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART,
ksoftirqd does re-enable preemption.

						Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/