Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On lun., 2016-02-29 at 10:05 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote:

> While I appreciate the attempt, that's not the problem.
> 
> Just to be clear
> 
> 		if (time_before(jiffies, end) && !need_resched() &&
> 		    --max_restart)
> 			goto restart;
> 
> aborts softirq *even if 0ns have elapsed*, if NET_RX has woken a process.


Sure, now remove the 1st and 2nd condition.

You would still 'abort' (ie wakeup ksoftirqd really) when --max_restart
becomes 0

So, instead of some subtle load dependent bug, you know have a reliable
trigger.

The fact it took 3 years for someone to complain about this change
should tell us something really.

The only way for your bug to hide would be to remove all the 'break
infinite loop' logic.

And this is not going to happen.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux